It is obvious that the Left has a prominent place on public, private, secular and Christian campuses and is so convincing that some Christians are denying their faith while other students are forming a personal set of beliefs for the first time.
In his book University of Destruction, David Wheaton cites research by Dr. Gary Railsback and the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA. Wheaton wrote, “Depending on the type of college attended, as many as 51% of students who claimed to be ‘born-again Christians’ as freshmen said they were no longer born-again Christians four years later.” (See chart on facing page.)
“The trial everyone has heard about – but most people underrate – is the sheer spiritual disorientation of the modern campus,” wrote J. Budziszewski in a Focus on the Family magazine article.
“Methods of indoctrination are likely to include not only required courses, but also freshman orientation, speech codes, mandatory diversity training, dormitory policies, guidelines for registered student organizations and mental health counseling,” Budziszewski added.
“[T]he modern university, having lost its moral convictions, has attached itself to relativistic doctrines such as tolerance and diversity, which mean, in practice, tolerance of anything but Biblical faith and traditional morality.”
The very object which you are judging can not be judged on worldly results, since the precise reason it is important is because it is higher (or deeper, call it what you will) than worldly matters. Art, for example, is let's say more noble, though there are probably better words to describe it, than everyday matters, so I do not love art because it produces good results or hate it because it produces bad results, but base my opinion on more personal, more intangible, more mystical reasons.
use more paragraphs.. i only skimmed
religion in and of itself is arrogance "i cannot provide any evidence for X, but i'm going to believe X exists because doing so makes me feel good, feel important" - that is the upmost in arrogance.
this study just merely reinforces the opinion I have of religion, based upon observation of it's effects on society: not only is it an expression of arrogance, but it is harmful to those around it
The very object which you are judging can not be judged on worldly results, since the precise reason it is important is because it is higher (or deeper, call it what you will) than worldly matters. Art, for example, is let's say more noble, though there are probably better words to describe it, than everyday matters, so I do not love art because it produces good results or hate it because it produces bad results, but base my opinion on more personal, more intangible, more mystical reasons.
Except that the entire spiel there is functionally a developed 'defense mechanism' of the cultural idea that is religion. In a sense modern art, facing criticism, also took on the "just cuz" mechanism in the form of "art is what the artist claims it to be."
Religion is arrogance,Religion is both ignorance and arrogance. Religions have caused more evil than good, that's the bottom line.
Religion is arrogance,Religion is both ignorance and arrogance. Religions have caused more evil than good, that's the bottom line.
Are we talking about religion, or the people who use it as a method to inspire/control others, though?
Religion is arrogance, at least those that claim Man was created in God's image and that God actually cares about us are. Fact is, in this huge Universe, the chance that it was all made for us is vanishingly small. We are not important. Deal with it.
TBH, I was going to say 'is this news?' about that article (in fact, I just have), but being ever wary of statistics, I thought a little more about it.
Is it not more probable that religion is merely a symptom of an underlying factor? Actually ,the argument could be turned right around: could we be drawing the opposite conclusion from the statistics? Maybe religion is the result of these social factors?
My distrust of statistics applied to something as nebulous as 'society' is almost as great as, if not equal to, my distrust of faith.
I agree, it's possible that these countries are more religious because of their social ills and not that their social ills are caused by religion!! Have you thought about that! People are living in poverty, in a violent society. People are suffering therefore wouldn't it make sense that these people would be more likely to seek out religion as a form of comfort. Most religions tell us that everything will be alright in the end, that there is life after death or we will be reborn in some way. For someone who is living in a cruel harsh world, they would want to believe more than those who live in a more comfortable environment, wouldn't they?
Religion linked with antisocial behavior?
Religion linked with genocide?
Somehow I feel it should really read:QuoteReligion linked with genocide?
O RLY?
Tell that to Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Khan, the American Indians, and the victims of the massacres in the Congo, Rwanda, and the Sudan. Oh, and the Roman Empire.
Sudan: Christians vs Muslims
Hitler: christian, encouraged his generals to go to church - killed jews
American Indians: victims of arrogant christians who thought the world belonged to them
O RLY?
Tell that to Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Khan, the American Indians, and the victims of the massacres in the Congo, Rwanda, and the Sudan. Oh, and the Roman Empire.
Hitler: christian, encouraged his generals to go to church - killed jews
Stalin/Mao: he never said it was the only cause- these guys killed for power
Khan: I don't remember him killing off the entire population of the areas had conquered.. that would have been counter productive
American Indians: victims of arrogant christians who thought the world belonged to them
Sudan: Christians vs Muslims
Rwanda: arbitrarily created ethnic group A vs arbitrarily created ethnic group B
Congo: not familiar enough to comment
Roman Empire: anyone not roman, including not of their religion, target for conquering - but they didn't kill off everyone they conquered, just the combatants they had to
So, you see, none of the genocides in this list (Sudan excepted) were in any way due to religion. And these were some pretty big ones, and I just rattled them off the top of my head.
horse****
Let's add the biggest single one you forgot
The Crusades: Religious Genocide
The Inquisition
the religous wars in the Holy Roman Empire (modern Germany/Poland/Austria, etc)
no.. there is no defending religion - "see see! X did it too!" doesn't work.. especially when you point out "X did this" in instances were X didn't do that
Shortly - in most cases, religion has been only superficial motive, and the actual driving force behind the atrocicers (is that a word?) has been personal advantage.
A witty retort. And then you proceed to repeat exactly what you said in the previous post, as if by repeating it often enough you cause it to be true. You might be able to convince yourself or others, but you can't change facts.
QuoteLet's add the biggest single one you forgot
The Crusades: Religious Genocide
Far outweighed by everything else.
QuoteThe Inquisition
Same here. The Inquisition killed only about 2500 people over the course of 400 years, making it one of the least effective massacres in history.
Quotethe religous wars in the Holy Roman Empire (modern Germany/Poland/Austria, etc)
Those were wars about economics, politics, and territory, not religion.
Quoteno.. there is no defending religion - "see see! X did it too!" doesn't work.. especially when you point out "X did this" in instances were X didn't do that
:wtf: are you talking about? Come back when you can sound coherent.
[/quote]Shortly - in most cases, religion has been only superficial motive, and the actual driving force behind the atrocicers (is that a word?) has been personal advantage.
:nod: In a nutshell. There's a big difference between religious motivation and religious rationalization.
If religion makes you anti-social, Kazan, what is your excuse? :P
I just want to know... do you like arguing constantly?
You post controversial articles that agree with your opinion
, and start a discussion, even though you are entirely convinced of the answer and you refuse to hear the other side at all... there's no point in it.
Hitler: christian, encouraged his generals to go to church - killed jews Hitler capitalized on Christian persecution of Jews during European history. As Goob said, he was an occultist, not a Christian. Considering he also killed most people because they were predominantly non-Aryan, crippled, or otherwise undesirable in his terms, it was much more ethnic cleansing than any sort of religious genocide. Christian, economically-depressed Germany just happened to be a good vessel for fascist policies.[/b]
Stalin/Mao: he never said it was the only cause- these guys killed for power Yes, and did this have anything to do with religion? Communism rejects religion, and these guys were communists. No religion played here.[/b]
Khan: I don't remember him killing off the entire population of the areas had conquered.. that would have been counter productive
American Indians: victims of arrogant christians who thought the world belonged to them
Sudan: Christians vs Muslims Ceded.[/b]
Rwanda: arbitrarily created ethnic group A vs arbitrarily created ethnic group B True, but where does religion play in here? Again, ethnic war; different tribes with different cultures, not differing religions. Add to Europe's terrible job at drawing boundaries to keep warring ethnic groups apart, and there's a recipe for disaster.[/b]
Congo: not familiar enough to comment Ditto.[/b]
Roman Empire: anyone not roman, including not of their religion, target for conquering - but they didn't kill off everyone they conquered, just the combatants they had to I doubt the 500,000 Hebrews that were killed when Hadrian surpressed the Judean revolts in the 1st Century were all combatants. Third Punic War works here as well; burning down a city and slaughtering the entire population would count as mass murder, I believe.[/b]
Sorry kaz but they're dead on with this.
Just to make things clearer BTW: I don't believe in God, I'm just saying you shouldn't give people **** for believing in God, you can argue, sure, I just don't know why I should care if Somone believes in God
or believes that your foreskin is an important part of your penis, cause frankly I really don't care either way.
If God is all-powerful, why have am I an aetheist?
And if God doesn't have the power to convert non-believers like me, why should I worship him?
And why did God make almost every bit of science done by anybody who hasn't specifically set out to prove the existence of God contradict his very existence?
And it is logically impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God from within the confines of our universe, as God exists outside the universe.Ah, blind faith. It's something I have never understood. It is like believing and having faith in an invisible bridge and when you try to cross that bridge, you just fall into your death on your first step.
Sudan: Christians vs Muslims
Granted. Strike that from the list of examples then. As for your other defenses:QuoteHitler: christian, encouraged his generals to go to church - killed jews
Hitler wasn't Christian. He recognized the value of the church as a leadership institution, but he tried to turn it into a Nazi propaganda machine. He himself was an occultist. Besides, he tried to rewrite the Bible (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_objectid%3D17525214&method%3Dfull&siteid%3D66633&headline%3Dthou-shalt-slaughter--name_page.html).
Anyway, he was doing an ethnic cleansing, not a religious cleansing. Maintaining the purity of the German race was a political philosophy, not a religious one.QuoteAmerican Indians: victims of arrogant christians who thought the world belonged to them
Economics. The Indians owned land that the settlers wanted. End of story.
So, you see, none of the genocides in this list (Sudan excepted) were in any way due to religion. And these were some pretty big ones, and I just rattled them off the top of my head.
Ah, blind faith. It's something I have never understood. It is like believing and having faith in an invisible bridge and when you try to cross that bridge, you just fall into your death on your first step.
Even Indiana Jones puts dirt on his bridges of faith before steppin' on 'em ;)
If God is all-powerful, why have am I an aetheist?
Perhaps because God granted you the ability to choose?
QuoteAnd if God doesn't have the power to convert non-believers like me, why should I worship him?
It wouldn't make sense to forcibly convert all non-believers. What's the point in being God to a race of robots?
And you should worship him because he is worthy of worship. Same reason you admire aldo's models; they're worthy of admiration.
QuoteAnd why did God make almost every bit of science done by anybody who hasn't specifically set out to prove the existence of God contradict his very existence?
I'm guessing you don't have much of a scientific background then. Nothing contradicts the existence of God. A particular event may have more than one explanation, one of which might be God, but that says nothing about which explanation is correct.
And it is logically impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God from within the confines of our universe, as God exists outside the universe.
Descartes: 1. I exist 2. I have an idea of a supremely perfect being, i.e. a being having all perfections. 3. As an imperfect being I would be unable to create such a concept. 4. The concept must have come from God. 5. To be a perfect being God must exist. 6. God exists.
OR
ThaTGuY: 1. I exist. 2. I eat stinky cheese. 3. As an imperfect being I would be unable to create stinky cheese. 4. The concept must have come from God. 5. To have a perfect head of stinky cheese God must exist. 6. God is stinky cheese.
The thing is, that christians (should) believe that you should do to your neighbour as you'd like to be done to yourself,
QuoteAnd why did God make almost every bit of science done by anybody who hasn't specifically set out to prove the existence of God contradict his very existence?
I'm guessing you don't have much of a scientific background then. Nothing contradicts the existence of God.
A particular event may have more than one explanation, one of which might be God, but that says nothing about which explanation is correct.
And it is logically impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God from within the confines of our universe, as God exists outside the universe.
P.P.P.P.P.S. Hey... doesn't conservation of energy prohibit spontaneous creation?
Wow, this is some funny stuff. :lol:<-----what happens when a Christian reads this stuff.
Wow, this is some funny stuff. :lol:<-----what happens when a Christian reads this stuff.
try reading the original article - most of this thread is an off-topic tangent started by a comment by Kalfireth
:rolleyes: <-- what happens when someone with their critical thinking skills intact listens to a christian :P :lol: :D
was that supposed to be a circumcision cheapshot?
:lol:<-----what a Christian does when he hears a response from a person with his critical thinking skills intact, but only his critical thinking skills intact. :drevil: :p
was that supposed to be a circumcision cheapshot?
:lol:<-----what a Christian does when he hears a response from a person with his critical thinking skills intact, but only his critical thinking skills intact. :drevil: :p
if so you just forfeit any right to make a statement in this thread, please move along and play with the children your age. We adults have discussions to be engaged in
No, Actually I didn't even think of circumcision, mostly because I don't give a hoot about it like most people, but thanks for bringing that to my attention, makes the comment more valid. :p
And it is logically impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God from within the confines of our universe, as God exists outside the universe.
Ah, blind faith. It's something I have never understood. It is like believing and having faith in an invisible bridge and when you try to cross that bridge, you just fall into your death on your first step.
Hitler was Austrian Catholic by upbringing, which may have contributed to his anti-semeticism. Don't get started on any "Catholics aren't Christian" comments please.
The occult that they were involved in was also primarily tied to Judaeo-Christian tradition as well.
Even Indiana Jones puts dirt on his bridges of faith before steppin' on 'em ;)
Then why does he send non-believers to Hell? Or do you not believe non-believers go to Hell? If I am not mistaken, all people who do not lead a Christian life are, according to the Bible (or some other, more recent religious work (i.e. Dante's Inferno, which has worked its way into religion so well that some uneducated people do not know that the things originally stated in it are not a part of the Bible)), doomed to suffer in the pits of Hell?
Seems to me that God, if he is all powerful, has permitted some pretty evil things. Like the Holocaust. Even if he gave people free will, could he not have turned Hitler into a pillar of salt, or rained fire on him from the heavens, like God seemed to have a knack for in the Old Testament days?
Maybe you can't prove or disprove God, but there are things proven by science that directly contradict the word of God. For example, the Big Bang theory: states that the universe was created approx. 15 billion years ago. Dinosaur skeletons: carbon date to 65 million years ago. Both of these occurred before the time that the Bible states the universe (or at least the earth, for the second example) was created. Evolution: goes against the creation theory as well, yet it has been observed (at least with bacteria and other such small organisms with short life-cycles).
Also, you said God exists outside the universe. Where in the Bible, or any previous holy books, does it say that?
Christians: you show me why you disbelieve in every god but yours, and I'll show you how easy it is to simply go one more.
Anyway, I worship pi!
I said you can't prove the existence or nonexistence of God, but you can find evidence to support it. Faith isn't blind; it's the act of taking a step forward based on incomplete knowledge.But then this isn't really 'blind faith', it's 'misguided faith', in that people believe something when they really should know better. But then, that's neither here nor there, I don't have any right to say what you can and cannot believe. But still... what the hell, man! :p
When was the last time you watched the movie? He puts dirt on the bridge after he steps on it. :pQuite true, good to see someone finally corrected that blatant mis-truth.
I found an interesting theory recently that says God does what he does because he wants to demonstrate his Godness. He is both merciful and just, and he wants to demonstrate both, but he allows people to choose what demonstration they receive.Based on simple logic that everyone is a "sinner" at birth, and "sinners" go to Hell for eternal damnation and soforth, then it stands to reason that individuals killed before they hear the 'word of God' [for lack of a better term] would therefore go to Hell. I know this is a really cheap shot, but i've never been able to give me a real answer on it, so i'll just ask; explain to me how sending the millions of babies killed every year into the fires of eternal torment is "merciful" and/or "just". Seriously now, i'm curious as to how Christians such as yourself can deal with that.
Using that interpretation, God wanted to demonstrate his justice by pouring out his wrath on Hitler. Therefore he allowed Hitler to run up an enormous wrath debt.That makes no sense. He lived a life of luxury and power, had people grovelling at his feet right up until the end, died with the woman he loved, and will be remembered forever. Damn, I don't envy that one bit!
First of all, none of us have outlived the universe, so we don't know for sure that it's 15 billion years old. ;)One of us has; the Universe, and she'll tell you quite a bit if you know how to read her.
More likely, God has a different perspective on time than we do.So, you're saying he's effectively playing SimCity on a universal scale, flipping the little time-compression thingies at will. Uh... huh...
If God created the universe, he couldn't have been contained by it. QED.The Universe is everything that exists. Therefore, if God is not within the Universe, he does not exist.
I believe in other gods. I just don't worship them.I'm genuinely perplexed by that statement. Could you elaborate?
But then this isn't really 'blind faith', it's 'misguided faith', in that people believe something when they really should know better. But then, that's neither here nor there, I don't have any right to say what you can and cannot believe. But still... what the hell, man! :p
Anyway, how can you deal with the logical contradiction of your 'merciful & just' God being the very same God that committed genocide, advocated rape and murder, and was generally a total bad-ass? What, he straightened himself out when he had kids?
Using that interpretation, God wanted to demonstrate his justice by pouring out his wrath on Hitler. Therefore he allowed Hitler to run up an enormous wrath debt.That makes no sense. He lived a life of luxury and power, had people grovelling at his feet right up until the end, died with the woman he loved, and will be remembered forever. Damn, I don't envy that one bit!
If God created the universe, he couldn't have been contained by it. QED.The Universe is everything that exists. Therefore, if God is not within the Universe, he does not exist.
I believe in other gods. I just don't worship them.I'm genuinely perplexed by that statement. Could you elaborate?
Maybe so. But I find there's sort of a symbiotic relationship between God and faith... you start with baby steps and then progress. The more faith you have, the more you see of God, and vice versa. It's like trust.One may also argue that the more you believe, the more open you are to religious suggestion. Indeed, the more zealous you are, the more you see God, but that doesn't mean God is appearing to you, only that you see God in everything around you; as in the change is subjective, rather than objective.
That's no contradiction; that's a demonstration of justice. Certain civilizations deserved to be destroyed, so God destroyed them.But that feels like such a cop-out. It's akin to saying "it's all just a part of God's plan" when something terrible happens. Granted, one can cite instances of God wiping out 'evil' civilisations, but it all comes back to the issue of natural disasters; evils that are not in any way applicable to the evils of men, and in most cases just take out the dumb sons-of-b****es unlucky enough to be caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. How can 230,000 deaths via one freak disaster be in any way applicable to any form of "justice"?
The real paradox is trying to reconcile mercy and justice, and figuring out how to apply them to a given situation. :)That's simple; mercy for Christians, justice for every other poor bastard. :rolleyes:
Not from an eternal perspective. In the big picture, Hitler spent a lifetime earning wrath for himself, and will pay the consequences forever.Okay, you've got me there. I was kinda hoping when I wrote about it initially that you wouldn't pick up on that sizable flaw in my logic. :nervous:
God is indeed concerned about the state of affairs here on Earth, but he's far more concerned about the state of affairs after death. The "God works in mysterious ways" aphorism is a clumsy way of saying "look at the big picture".But even you must admit the "big picture" nowadays is looking rather grim. I'm fine with people believing that God exists, but to believe in the face of all logic that that very same God is somehow "looking out" for us is pure folly.
And suppose the universe isn't all that exists? The universe is a closed system. God is not bound by the universe's rules, nor is he measureable from within the universe. How can he be part of the universe then?I realise it's pointless to debate the mechanics of an extra-universal being as you would suggest, but how can a being outside of a given reality interact with components within said reality?
The Biblical definition of the common noun "god" seems to be "a heavenly being with great authority and power". Lucifer is referred to as a god in many places. Other Biblical gods include Dagon, Moloch, and Ba'al. Whenever God (capital G) is referred to in this context, he is called "Most High God" or "God Almighty". Literally, the God above all other gods; the one with the most power and authority.Wow, I never realised that Christianity had its own little pantheon of Gods. Sure, the pyramid of power is a little more pointed, but it's a pantheon nonetheless. With all the monotheistic scripture, I never would have suspected multiple Gods within the faith. Very interesting indeed.
God created the other "gods" as well as angels and people. He has assigned various roles and responsibilities to different parts of his creation, but he reserves all worship for himself.
I said you can't prove the existence or nonexistence of God, but you can find evidence to support it. Faith isn't blind; it's the act of taking a step forward based on incomplete knowledge.
QuoteAlso, you said God exists outside the universe. Where in the Bible, or any previous holy books, does it say that?
If God created the universe, he couldn't have been contained by it. QED.
QuoteChristians: you show me why you disbelieve in every god but yours, and I'll show you how easy it is to simply go one more.
I believe in other gods. I just don't worship them.
QuoteAlso, you said God exists outside the universe. Where in the Bible, or any previous holy books, does it say that?
If God created the universe, he couldn't have been contained by it. QED.
so sayeth you - fallicious argumentum ad verecundiam
humans create cars, but they can be contained by them
You're talking about things as they are following the laws of nature but that does not allow for the supernatural, which, lets face, an omniescent, omnipotent being such as a god is!
The problem of evil is the problem of reconciling the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent God with the existence of a world full of evil and suffering. If God is omniscient then he knows how to bring it about that there is neither evil nor suffering. If God is omnipotent then he is able to bring it about that there is neither evil nor suffering. If God is benevolent then he wants to bring it about that there is neither evil nor suffering. But if God knows how to, is able to and wants to bring it about that there is neither evil nor suffering, then why does he not do so?
then, by your own words, god is malevolent.
there need be no purpose to life - people feel the need to think there is one, but that is just a feeling - and emotion. They are searching for a crutch. Life simply is - it is not good, it is not bad.
Life without a crutch is not miserable as you assert it to be. I am a very happy preson, I enjoy life, I am getting married (secularily... lol I typoed that as sexularily :P) .
Only those without the backbone to stand up without their crutches view the world of the crutchless as miserable. From the perspective of the crutchless, we see over your individuals heads as you are bent - we can see the sea of those desperately gripping their crutches for emotional safety, afraid to step away and stand for themself and to accept that some questions do not have answers as they are not a valid question to ask.
Religion is the opiate of the masses.Fixed. I wuv communism.
QuoteChristians: you show me why you disbelieve in every god but yours, and I'll show you how easy it is to simply go one more.
I believe in other gods. I just don't worship them.
that's a contradiction
QuoteAlso, you said God exists outside the universe. Where in the Bible, or any previous holy books, does it say that?
If God created the universe, he couldn't have been contained by it. QED.
so sayeth you - fallicious argumentum ad verecundiam
humans create cars, but they can be contained by them
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?” - Epicurus
QuoteAlso, you said God exists outside the universe. Where in the Bible, or any previous holy books, does it say that?QuoteIf God created the universe, he couldn't have been contained by it. QED.
so sayeth you - fallicious argumentum ad verecundiam
humans create cars, but they can be contained by them
*agrees with nuclear1*
As for this:“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?” - Epicurus
Epicurus failed to take into account time. God can and will put an end to evil at the end of days, but there are long-term benefits that justify allowing evil in the short term.
One of them is maturity. Fighting evil builds character, but if there were no evil to fight, there would be no opportunity to mature in this way.
Religion is the opiate of the masses.Fixed. I wuv communism.
I like Dekker's original version.Irrelevant, it was a bloody mis-quote!
Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man—state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.He makes a good point, no?
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?”
use more paragraphs.. i only skimmed
religion in and of itself is arrogance "i cannot provide any evidence for X, but i'm going to believe X exists because doing so makes me feel good, feel important" - that is the upmost in arrogance.
this study just merely reinforces the opinion I have of religion, based upon observation of it's effects on society: not only is it an expression of arrogance, but it is harmful to those around it
Religion is arrogance, at least those that claim Man was created in God's image and that God actually cares about us are. Fact is, in this huge Universe, the chance that it was all made for us is vanishingly small. We are not important. Deal with it.
Religion is both ignorance and arrogance. Religions have caused more evil than good, that's the bottom line.
Silence, insolent fool! You dare question your God?
*Eyes glow*
Isn't it even more arrogant to say "You're arrogant becouse you belive X, which I can't possibly disprove but I just don't like it, so you beliving in it is stupid and arrogant!"
And what is so arrogant about beliving God cares about us? After all he created us!
Sez you. You THINK they caused more evil than good but that can hardly be mesured (and news of good deeds don't travel as far as news of baddeeds) or proven...
I fail to see which religion claims that the wole universe is made only for us.The general idea is that humans are made in God's image, we are his ultimate creation [other than curly-fries, that is], and we're generally important. Even with a universe bigger than we can possibly fathom, God pays attention only to us, as we are special. Moreover, the general gist of the Bible indicates that we are the only life in the universe and soforth, a preposterous notion unto itself.
And what is so arrogant about beliving God cares about us? After all he created us!
And don't you love the things you made - no matter what exactly they are? (paintings, models, statues, poems, etc..)
Mefustae is a false god. Banish the darkness and take the path to Enlightenment.You will regret the day you turned your back on your God and Creator. Feel my wrath!
Hallowed are the Ori.
You will regret the day you turned your back on your God and Creator. Feel my wrath!
*Activates ribbon-device and implodes Ace's skull*
Because we would not know evil, and if we did not know evil then we would not know good either, it's the difference between joy and sorrow. If we did not know sorrow then we would have nothing to compare our joy to and therefore not be able to appreciate it.
By Herra Tohtori
If there is no light, there is no shadow either. It's just dark. But as soon as there is light, there are also shadows - unless the light is in the middle of a n empty room. Then there's just light. Existence of a shadow requires at least two things:
1. Light source
2. Object to cast shadow
And what is so arrogant about beliving God cares about us? After all he created us!
so you claim, with absolutely no evidence to support your claims thereof - and yet you (yes YOU Specifically as well as you generally) attempt to force other people to live according to your beliefs as if you had evidence they were real.
You don't have one scrap of evidence - notta one. Therefore that makes your beliefs delusions and your behavior in presuming that you are correct and get to tell others what to do arrogance.
Sez you. You THINK they caused more evil than good but that can hardly be mesured (and news of good deeds don't travel as far as news of baddeeds) or proven...
it's fairly easy to measure good vs ill and religions come very down on the side of ill.
By Mustafae
The general idea is that humans are made in God's image, we are his ultimate creation [other than curly-fries, that is], and we're generally important. Even with a universe bigger than we can possibly fathom, God pays attention only to us, as we are special. Moreover, the general gist of the Bible indicates that we are the only life in the universe and soforth, a preposterous notion unto itself.
Blah.. I say there can be Good without Evil.. Both are not needed. You can compare joy with the time you do not feel you (but are not sad either) It is a big differenceWhat? That makes no sense, it's like light & shadow, yin & yang; one inexorably needs the other to exist. If you disagree, try and come up with an example of something that can be said to be "on" in a functional sense, and yet at no time can be considered "off". Not just a light without an offswitch, come up with something that functions and cannot 'not' function. It's the very same thing.
It doesn't say we're special in any way.. "Created in His image" can mean a lot of things - and never does it say that such attribute s reserved exclusivly for us. Maby he made other inteligent life out there, also "in His image" and thus they would be equally important.And maybe God has a tail, but he left it out of the design because he thought it looked a bit 'off'. You can say 'maybe' to justify anything, but it's pretty damned clear that the Bible implies Humanity is something special, I mean who else does it say he gives the gift of speech, self-awareness, and higher-level intelligence. That self-imposed importance alone makes you people [and curly-fries] arrogant.
No I don't have evidence of it. But you have no evidence to disporove it either.
And since when am I forcing anyone to accpet my beliefs?
Love, mercy, btortherhoos, generosity and all that jaz aren't exclusive to Christianity - they are the backbone of any decent moral system, so wanting people to act that way is not arrogance.
I want so see those stats. Where are they? How on earth can you possibly mesure the good/bad thnigs people do becosue of religion? Did you perhaps write down every act of kindness any religios person ever did? Every person killed in the name of religion? I don't think so....
Just for fun: Doesn't disparging the majority undermine democracy?
No I don't have evidence of it. But you have no evidence to disporove it either.
the fact that you have no evidence for it makes it irrational and a delusion to believe in it - the fact that there isn't any evidence against doesn't change that.
And since when am I forcing anyone to accpet my beliefs?
since you vote for people who legislate their (your) religion into government
Love, mercy, btortherhoos, generosity and all that jaz aren't exclusive to Christianity - they are the backbone of any decent moral system, so wanting people to act that way is not arrogance.
you're right - but those aren't the only things that christianity teaches - it also teaches bigotry, hatred, ethnocentrism and (if you ignore most of the new testament like most fundies do) war mongering
why should I try to explain the obvious to the deaf?
There's nothnig delusional or irrational to belive in God.
Obviously your logic is flawed.
Obviously your logic is flawed.
Eh? WTF? I'm afraid you lost me here.....especially with the forcing part
Christianity doesn't teach the latter part. Crazy fundies do not a religion make.
Becouse it's not obvious.
You vote for "anti-abortion" candidates correct?
if you answered yes to any of these you are forcing your religion onto others
to the deaf (IE to someone who wouldn't listen anyway)
You vote for "pro-choice" candidates, correct?
Then by your own reasoning you are forcing your beliefs onto others. Unless you live in an anarchy, government always operates according to a set of principles.
You vote for "pro-choice" candidates, correct?
Then by your own reasoning you are forcing your beliefs onto others. Unless you live in an anarchy, government always operates according to a set of principles.
goober you do realize that is SELF CONTRADICTORY - a pro-choice candidate is in favor of CHOICE. They're not forcing you to get an abortion, anti-abortion candidates ARE trying to force you NOT to get one however. You see the difference
under one you have the CHOICE to do something - you also can choose not to do it
under the other you HAVE NO CHOICE
We have flat prohibitions against drunk driving, don't we? Murder? Pedophilia? Cannabilism? As far as I know, there's no "choice" allowed for a person considering one of those crimes.
Imagine if a politician campaigning for office said this: "We would prefer that people not kill and eat their neighbors. We'd like to minimize the amount of cannabilism that goes on in the world today. However, if a person decides that cannabilism is the best option for them, we won't stand in their way." It's absurd.
Just as it's wrong to overtly commit evil (i.e. murder), it is also wrong to stand by and do nothing while evil continues (i.e. abortion). "All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing," n'est-ce pas?
You vote for "moral values" candidates correct?
You vote for "anti-abortion" candidates correct?
if you answered yes to any of these you are forcing your religion onto others
God came to me in a dream last night. He said "Forget it. I really can't be arsed". So you know.
If you do it in a christian framework, you get sent to a place of eternal condemnation, damnation and torture. For all eternity.
and yes, that does mean hitler went to heaven if he asked for forgivenessMy mind reels to that Robot-Chicken gag where the guy is walking around heavan and comes across Hitler, who greets him with a befuddled "i'm as surprised as you are!". Good times, good times.
Any man can arbitrarily that which he does not like to be evil. Some people use the same basis for arguements to justify stoning for 'immorality'. By that basis, I can decide christianity is 'evil' and must be prohibited; I don't need to provide a rational explanation, just a belief.
Pro-choice is simply permitting individuals to make a personal, moral, choice upon an issue where the harm is not rationally or legally measurably as it is when regarding to crimes where there is a clearly living individual. Whether you like it or not, there is no scientific 'proof' that states a foetus is a human individual with the rights accorded thereof; there is, however, such a proof for the mother, which is why her interests - mental and physical health - are given precedence within law.
It's unfair and fallacious to compare cannibalism - or any crime against a person - to abortion so long as there is no concrete basis within law that defines a foetus/blastocycst/etc as a human individual. Or, if you really want to make that comparison, recognise it's your own belief and legislating on the basis of that would be forcing others to follow that belief (whereas pro-choice legislation allows others to have a different belief - it obviously doesn't hold them to following a 'for' or 'against' opinion).
Any man can arbitrarily that which he does not like to be evil. Some people use the same basis for arguements to justify stoning for 'immorality'. By that basis, I can decide christianity is 'evil' and must be prohibited; I don't need to provide a rational explanation, just a belief.
Actually you do. The basic principles of Christianity (and practicly all monotheistic faiths) are good.
Mercy, love, respect for all life are not only moral but allso quite sound modes of behaviour.
Just saying "it's evil" doesn't cut it.
QuotePro-choice is simply permitting individuals to make a personal, moral, choice upon an issue where the harm is not rationally or legally measurably as it is when regarding to crimes where there is a clearly living individual. Whether you like it or not, there is no scientific 'proof' that states a foetus is a human individual with the rights accorded thereof; there is, however, such a proof for the mother, which is why her interests - mental and physical health - are given precedence within law.
Science is tapping in hte dark here. There's no telling whn (or IF at all) they will know when consiusness first appears. I won't even get into hte soul debate, as you would dismiss it immediately.
But one this is for sure - a fetus is going to become a full grown human. It's basis, it DNA has been formed and created with the conception. From that point on it is a distinct being.
Thus I consider abortion a horrid thing - as it kills the person that is going to be.
QuoteIt's unfair and fallacious to compare cannibalism - or any crime against a person - to abortion so long as there is no concrete basis within law that defines a foetus/blastocycst/etc as a human individual. Or, if you really want to make that comparison, recognise it's your own belief and legislating on the basis of that would be forcing others to follow that belief (whereas pro-choice legislation allows others to have a different belief - it obviously doesn't hold them to following a 'for' or 'against' opinion).
It's allo unfair and falacious to compare the action of fanaticly insane individuals (the foremantioned stoning) which is evil to Christianity.
*SNIP*
EDIT; that is to say, religion is in my view inherently neutral. Even when viewed - as is my view - as being something invented to enforce societal constraints upon action and morality, it can be used as a justification and indeed cause of both good and evil acts.
What, with the same God who decided to exterminate every living thing on the planet because he didn't like the way it was going? The same one who decided to massacre Sodom & Gommorah for - as some would have it - homosexuality? The God who sent plagues to kill innocent egyptians (babies) in exodus? Or, of course, who would damn people to hell for believing differently....
If you define morality by the bible, of course you say 'it's good'; you're conditioned by belief to do so. But how come so much **** is done by people 'in the name of God' nowadays, like the Vaticans anti-condom policy or Islamic stonings under Shariah law?
Science is only in the dask in as far as it is concerned with death. If you define death by the medical method of brain death, then you can only define life by the presence of sentient brain activity.
And, er, that's (progress to child) not sure. Miscarriages, etc. Plus, it does not matter one jot what the foetus may be, only what it is at the time of abortion. I'd ask you answer this question - what is it that makes human beings worthy of protection under the law, as compared to other animals such as the ones we eat for food?[/qote]
You wouldn't be thinking that if you were the one that got aborted. On second though - you wouldn't be thinking AT ALL.
Miscariages can happen. And you can also be run ver by a car. Does that mean I can kill you now, since chances are that you might not even reach the end of your natural life cycle?
A fetus is a human - it has the destinct DNA, it feeds and it grows.
And to answer the second question - not much. I really don't see humans as so uberly-extra-special..What makes us worthy? Probably nothing.. or just the decision of hte populace that there should be laws in the first place.QuoteIn any case, back to the crux of the matter - you can find abortion horrid if you want. All I ask, is don't remove the option, because people might believe differently and they have every right and basis for doing so.
In case of complications, where the life of hte mother is in danger - then yes.QuoteSo you speak for all Christians now? You define what the bible means? Or do you just have your own selected interpretation, which you think is right, but can't prove to be?
Nope. Nope, I asked learned men that studied in Vatican. and apparently, you seem to have your own interpretation.
The world was never flooded. Notice that the Bible se "world" but you have to put it in the contexts of hte people who wrote it - to them the wearls was the land they lived in (they didn't know about other continents or far, distant lands).
Aside from that, Sodomah nad Gomorah were guilty of far more than homosexuality.
And plagues happen naturally all over the wrold. God for instance knew that the plauge would kill half the Europe. So if he were to send a man preaching hygene or damnation, would you blame him for the death of those who refuse?
Not only becosue the Bible sez it so - it's beacose my basic sense of moral sez so,
it's becose my logic sez it teh smart thing to do.
People can do bad things with even hte best things. I can kill you with a spoon. I cna kill you with sleeping pills. Does that make the sleeping pills or the spoon a evil and dangeous thing?
and a anti-condom policy is really far from evil
You wouldn't be thinking that if you were the one that got aborted. On second though - you wouldn't be thinking AT ALL.
Miscariages can happen. And you can also be run ver by a car. Does that mean I can kill you now, since chances are that you might not even reach the end of your natural life cycle?
A fetus is a human - it has the destinct DNA, it feeds and it grows.
In case of complications, where the life of hte mother is in danger - then yes.
What, with the same God who decided to exterminate every living thing on the planet because he didn't like the way it was going? The same one who decided to massacre Sodom & Gommorah for - as some would have it - homosexuality? The God who sent plagues to kill innocent egyptians (babies) in exodus? Or, of course, who would damn people to hell for believing differently....
The world was never flooded. Notice that the Bible se "world" but you have to put it in the contexts of hte people who wrote it - to them the wearls was the land they lived in (they didn't know about other continents or far, distant lands).
Aside from that, Sodomah nad Gomorah were guilty of far more than homosexuality. Did that warrant their destruction? I don't know - I wasn't there and I don't know what exactly they did. Could be that the effects of God's wrath have been overblown by the old writers.
And plagues happen naturally all over the wrold. God for instance knew that the plauge would kill half the Europe. So if he were to send a man preaching hygene or damnation, would you blame him for the death of those who refuse?
Anyway, this point is a very interesting one, and really a lot can be said and discusses about it, but I'll leave that for another time.
QuoteIf you define morality by the bible, of course you say 'it's good'; you're conditioned by belief to do so. But how come so much **** is done by people 'in the name of God' nowadays, like the Vaticans anti-condom policy or Islamic stonings under Shariah law?
Not only becosue the Bible sez it so - it's beacose my basic sense of moral sez so, it's becose my logic sez it teh smart thing to do.
People can do bad things with even hte best things. I can kill you with a spoon. I cna kill you with sleeping pills. Does that make the sleeping pills or the spoon a evil and dangeous thing?
and a anti-condom policy is really far from evil. Strange, debatable, maby even questionalbe (to a point - I mean the only way to be REALYL sure is not to do it)
QuoteScience is only in the dask in as far as it is concerned with death. If you define death by the medical method of brain death, then you can only define life by the presence of sentient brain activity.
Tere area lot of living things that don't have brains. Does that mean they are not alive? Or that they cannot die?
QuoteAnd, er, that's (progress to child) not sure. Miscarriages, etc. Plus, it does not matter one jot what the foetus may be, only what it is at the time of abortion. I'd ask you answer this question - what is it that makes human beings worthy of protection under the law, as compared to other animals such as the ones we eat for food?
You wouldn't be thinking that if you were the one that got aborted. On second though - you wouldn't be thinking AT ALL.
Miscariages can happen. And you can also be run ver by a car. Does that mean I can kill you now, since chances are that you might not even reach the end of your natural life cycle?
A fetus is a human - it has the destinct DNA, it feeds and it grows.
And to answer the second question - not much. I really don't see humans as so uberly-extra-special..What makes us worthy? Probably nothing.. or just the decision of hte populace that there should be laws in the first place.
QuoteIn any case, back to the crux of the matter - you can find abortion horrid if you want. All I ask, is don't remove the option, because people might believe differently and they have every right and basis for doing so.
In case of complications, where the life of hte mother is in danger - then yes.
QuoteSo you speak for all Christians now? You define what the bible means? Or do you just have your own selected interpretation, which you think is right, but can't prove to be?
Nope. Nope, I asked learned men that studied in Vatican. and apparently, you seem to have your own interpretation.
How far would you be willing to go with that? I mean, would you allow an abortion if the mother was definintely going to die? What about if she would probably die, how about then? How about if there was a reasonable chance she might be severely injured by the birth, what about then? Just where do you draw the line where the foetus' life becomes more important than the mothers?QuoteIn any case, back to the crux of the matter - you can find abortion horrid if you want. All I ask, is don't remove the option, because people might believe differently and they have every right and basis for doing so.In case of complications, where the life of hte mother is in danger - then yes.
Aside from that, Sodomah nad Gomorah were guilty of far more than homosexuality.you act as if you have real solid grounds to say homosexuality is bad - you don't
your "Basic sense of moral" is BASED off the bible - making that statement circular logic
no it's EXACTLY evil - as it's actively discouraging safe sex practices
Sex is intended for reproduction, no? It's terrific how the human body works that reproduction is encouraged by sex being extremely pleasurable, but does that mean we should indulge in it at every given opportunity? Of course you can prevent fertilization by using condoms and pills, but what if the condom breaks or the pill doesn't work and sex does what it was intended to do?
My point is that sex, while it might be fun, has its consequences. If you're talking about safe sex between a married couple, that's great, but not between two people who just want to **** around--if she gets pregnant as a result of it, you'd better be ****ing able to take care of that baby and not just run down to the abortion clinic to avoid responsibility for your actions. Unless there's a very legitimate reason for aborting the baby (and I mean extreme physical danger to the mother), you should be willing to have that baby and take care of it.
But that's just my ranting. Continue, please...
Then there's the "Morning After Pill" which can be taken upto 72 hours after sex. If the girl was made pregnant and took this pill, where do you stand on that??
Sex is intended for reproduction, no? It's terrific how the human body works that reproduction is encouraged by sex being extremely pleasurable, but does that mean we should indulge in it at every given opportunity? Of course you can prevent fertilization by using condoms and pills, but what if the condom breaks or the pill doesn't work and sex does what it was intended to do?
My point is that sex, while it might be fun, has its consequences. If you're talking about safe sex between a married couple, that's great, but not between two people who just want to **** around--if she gets pregnant as a result of it, you'd better be ****ing able to take care of that baby and not just run down to the abortion clinic to avoid responsibility for your actions. Unless there's a very legitimate reason for aborting the baby (and I mean extreme physical danger to the mother), you should be willing to have that baby and take care of it.
But that's just my ranting. Continue, please...
Why is non-reproductive sex considered bad, again?
Then there's the "Morning After Pill" which can be taken upto 72 hours after sex. If the girl was made pregnant and took this pill, where do you stand on that??
the morning after pill cannot destroy an already existing pregnancy (IE if the egg is fertilized and implanted the morning after pill has zero effect on it)
Why is non-reproductive sex considered bad, again?
You can't really have non-reproductive sex if the male and female reproductive organs are together during orgasm. It might not be intended, but it sure is a consequence. Condoms and pills don't work 100% of the time, and the only reason I say that it's bad is because people most of the time aren't willing to take care of the baby that it produces. While I'm not anti-abortion, it does sicken me that two people who mess around one night and find out that the girl's pregnant can go down to the nearest abortion clinic and just rid of themselves of any responsibility for their actions. Of course, there are certain cases where the mother's life would in danger, but otherwise, the parents should be bloody well able to take care of the baby or at least willing to put it up for adoption if something goes wrong.
And just as a sidenote, I don't base any of my beliefs in this matter on religious teachings--I base it off of personal responsibility and common sense.
Sorry, I'm not sure you've actually given a reason for sex for the purposes of pleasure being bad. All I can see is a criticism of abortion, not having sex with sensible precautions.
Sorry, I'm not sure you've actually given a reason for sex for the purposes of pleasure being bad. All I can see is a criticism of abortion, not having sex with sensible precautions.
all i can see (him, not you) is a culturally and personally immature noob who thinks he has the right to tell other people how to use their bodies.
IMHO getting an abortion is MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH more responsible than bringing the baby into the world very often. he somehow sees that as "shirking their responsibility" - they HAVE NO RESPONSIBILITY TO A HARDLY DIFFERENTIATED CLUSTER OF PARASITIC CELLS!
nah, i'm sick and tired of religious ****tards forcing their decisions onto the bodies of others - myself actually being the victim of such.
Er, you might want to tone down a bit there Kaz, the lad is allowed to express his opinion without being insulted or barracked, regardless of whether you or I agree with it.
:wtf:
Who's the religious ****tard??? :nervous: :confused:
Hardly; it's just my opinion. I've no intention of forcing it on others, because, as I said before, I don't support anti-abortion legislation or politicians.
Kaz, we were all parasitic cells at one point, but aren't you glad your parents didn't treat you like that while you were in the womb?
Believe it or not, Kaz, not everyone raised in a Christian environment ends up being a bigot (which, by the way, I've noticed you've become in one way or another) or somebody who finds himself 'holier than thou'.
Have I not said hundreds of times that I don't base this off of religious viewpoints, but just common sense and a belief in personal (albeit long-term) responsibility?
It really is becoming a chore to argue with you, Kaz, since you seem to be willing to put anyone that even mentions that they were raised as a Christian into the special category of evil that you seem to categorize them as.
The church saint anini-vevva-mununga-hood........the 4th :nervous:
Seirously though, Christians dont condone it, But the parents can still do what they want, I been on the wrong end of a scalpel myself. 9 year olds have no pwer, At the time i couldnt do ****, But if life gives you eggs, make lemonade or something :rolleyes:
I haven't yet seen a christian, yourself included, without a "holier than thou" attitude - your post above about them supposeldy not taking responsibility is a "holier than thou" attitude. Furthermore, it is not bigotry to cite LEGITIMATE FACTUAL problems with christians that they daily demonstrated to me. Especially when they are daily supressing my rights, and have directly caused the mutilation of my body.
common sense is anything but common, what you define as common sense undoubtably is based off the teachings of your religion, same as your view of what is responsibility.
Christians have been responsible for the supression of my rights and the mutilation of my body. Until you show me that you stand up against your fellows who caused these, then you are an enabler and as guilty as they are.
The church saint anini-vevva-mununga-hood........the 4th :nervous:
Seirously though, Christians dont condone it, But the parents can still do what they want, I been on the wrong end of a scalpel myself. 9 year olds have no pwer, At the time i couldnt do ****, But if life gives you eggs, make lemonade or something :rolleyes:
So I'm thinking stealing the scalple and stabbing the ****er who was holding it, was out of the question?
Hardly; it's just my opinion. I've no intention of forcing it on others, because, as I said before, I don't support anti-abortion legislation or politicians. The only reason I find abortion wrong is when two people decide to shirk the responsibility to the developed fetus that will become a human being in nine months.
Kaz, we were all parasitic cells at one point, but aren't you glad your parents didn't treat you like that while you were in the womb?
Kaz, which christian church did your parents belong to?? I know of none that subscribe to circumcision. The jewsih and muslim faiths yes, I have heard they do it, but never a christian religion??
To be honest its not that bad, (it was 15 years ago bear in mind) On a serious note when you got an active "Jiggy" life, its a lot easier to erm,.............keep a clean house shall i say?
Kaz, which christian church did your parents belong to?? I know of none that subscribe to circumcision. The jewsih and muslim faiths yes, I have heard they do it, but never a christian religion??
it's not an official doctrine of the prostent church. However I know of an incident in canada where a boy, then 8 years old, was forcibly held down and his foreskin crudely removed by two priests for his "masturbatory ways". The Canadian healthcare system just paid for skin to be grafted onto his penis to repair the damage - his circumcision was so severe he could not get an erection without pain.
The reason why it is accurate to blame christians is that it was brought to america by christians in the late 1800s as a "cure to masturbation" (they KNEW it reduced sexual pleasure) - specifically Dr Kellogg (as in frosted flakes). It was then carried on with junk science that I still faith to fathom how it doesn't get laughed out of peer reviewed journals in the US to this day (And does get laughed out elsewhere).
The practice was restarted by christians to deprive boys of sexual pleasure. It serves no other purpose.
To be honest its not that bad, (it was 15 years ago bear in mind) On a serious note when you got an active "Jiggy" life, its a lot easier to erm,.............keep a clean house shall i say?
at the cost of 66% of the nerves of the penis, the desensatization of the remaining nerves, and often making the use of artificial lubricants required to make coitus not painful for the woman - and a decreased likelyhood of being able to make the woman orgasm from vaginal penetration alone.
Holy crap, thats completely different to my situation, Mine was purley medical, The above is just mutoilation and ABH, plus priest porn.......
To be honest its not that bad, (it was 15 years ago bear in mind) On a serious note when you got an active "Jiggy" life, its a lot easier to erm,.............keep a clean house shall i say?
at the cost of 66% of the nerves of the penis, the desensatization of the remaining nerves, and often making the use of artificial lubricants required to make coitus not painful for the woman - and a decreased likelyhood of being able to make the woman orgasm from vaginal penetration alone.
Eh? What you on about i got kids, and my £%$% works fine, in fact one time i thought about a bird from Charmed and it worked too well, but thats another story.....
To me responsibility simply equates to taking the right decision; and for a abortion I think the rightness of that decision is very much down to the woman (primarily) and man (secondarily) involved.
EDIT; it increasingly strikes me, actually, that when we get onto this whole 'taking responsibility' thing, it's not about taking responsibility at all but mandating the physical and emotional discomfort of unwanted pregnancy and possibly subsequent child rearing as a punishment for having sex (regardless of what precautions were taken).
nuclear1: You are not a fundie, I know this. However I don't see you actively opposing them. I don't see you working against their co-opting of your religion. I just see the moderate christians sitting their quietly, doing nothing about the behavior because it isn't infringing upon them. In this situation you are either actively supporting freedom, or you are it's enemy. People who like freedom, but do nothing to defend it, are guilty of being "good men doing nothing".
I can name very few people in my entire congregation that actually agree with anything the fundies do; is it enough that at least half of my congregation votes for liberal politicians? Of course, I've got no power in this matter: I state my opinion with regards to opposing the fundies, but due to being unable to vote at seventeen, I'm unable to capitalize on this directly. I've written countless times to the Congressmen that my parents and other members of my congregation elect to represent my community in protest of fundie legislation, and apparently it works--neither Sen. Lugar or Bayh are exactly known to side with fundies on issues in Congress.
I'm not dicussing my winkles functionality with anyone except my wife and maybe a doctor should it ever drop off. :mad:
This isnt the general cir*******sition thread fury closed that.
anyway,................Who reckons Jesus was the original hippy? :confused:
* I haven't seen many good christians in a LONG TIME
QuoteTo me responsibility simply equates to taking the right decision; and for a abortion I think the rightness of that decision is very much down to the woman (primarily) and man (secondarily) involved.
That's actually a very valid point. I've always formed my opinion around having the child and then making a decision: raise the child together or with the help of family/friends, or just put it up for adoption. With regards to abortion, I can't stress enough that people who mess around just for the temporary pleasure and believe that they can get away with just having abortions as a safeguard against having to raise children or giving the child a chance thoroughly disgust me, because it shows a total lack of regards for the consequences of sex.
As you can probably tell, I'm all about what's going on in peoples' heads at the time, which is why I don't attempt to force my opinion onto others--you can never know what's going on in their heads when they make a decision, and there's always another side to the story. Now, if the Christian Fundies would only agree with that...
QuoteEDIT; it increasingly strikes me, actually, that when we get onto this whole 'taking responsibility' thing, it's not about taking responsibility at all but mandating the physical and emotional discomfort of unwanted pregnancy and possibly subsequent child rearing as a punishment for having sex (regardless of what precautions were taken).
True, but isn't the physical labor and child rearing a result of the woman's choice to have sex, and thus a consequence that she (and her partner) must take responsibility? Of course, it's an entirely different situation in terms of rape, where it's not her choice, but in this case, I would say it is her responsibility to at least raise the child (assuming it's in her physical capacity; she shouldn't have to if the birth would kill or otherwise horribly cripple her). Whether or not she chooses to raise it or put it up for adoption is the next step.
Still, very valid points. The viewpoint on responsibility was especially interesting.
On a personal topic, my wife recently had a hystorectomy for menstrual problems and we don't have children.
Well, let's say (ignoring human nature and sex as a sort of bonding/expression of love thing, which is what I'd say it's equally-primary purpose is alongside reproduction) you have a bloke weaing a condom, a woman on contraceptive pills, and - despite the miniscule probability incurred - it happens? They've taken every possible precaution, have illustrated an awareness of consequences in doing so, is it something - a freak of chance - that necessitates punishment?
I'm not a one-night stand hedonistic kind of bloke; I don't have much tolerance for people who shag around for the hell of it, even if I can't give a cold rational rather than emotional, personal justification for it. (and I would never accept any legislation or law that would deny abortions in that type of case, because it's not a legally valid standpoint and it would be essentially 'have a baby' punishment rather than any sort of fair legislation)
But I think there's a world of difference between a loving couple who just get unlucky, versus some guy who gets **** faced at the pub and has unprotected sex with an equally ****-faced girl in a back alley, and it's the former case which I think matters when we consider the morality of sex; especially as I think it's not just a reproductive act in human psychology.
I can name very few people in my entire congregation that actually agree with anything the fundies do; is it enough that at least half of my congregation votes for liberal politicians? Of course, I've got no power in this matter: I state my opinion with regards to opposing the fundies, but due to being unable to vote at seventeen, I'm unable to capitalize on this directly. I've written countless times to the Congressmen that my parents and other members of my congregation elect to represent my community in protest of fundie legislation, and apparently it works--neither Sen. Lugar or Bayh are exactly known to side with fundies on issues in Congress.
good, then my apologies* (plus i didn't realize you were a minor) - will you be 18 in time for this november's midterm?
Well, let's say (ignoring human nature and sex as a sort of bonding/expression of love thing, which is what I'd say it's equally-primary purpose is alongside reproduction) you have a bloke weaing a condom, a woman on contraceptive pills, and - despite the miniscule probability incurred - it happens? They've taken every possible precaution, have illustrated an awareness of consequences in doing so, is it something - a freak of chance - that necessitates punishment?
I'm not a one-night stand hedonistic kind of bloke; I don't have much tolerance for people who shag around for the hell of it, even if I can't give a cold rational rather than emotional, personal justification for it. (and I would never accept any legislation or law that would deny abortions in that type of case, because it's not a legally valid standpoint and it would be essentially 'have a baby' punishment rather than any sort of fair legislation)
But I think there's a world of difference between a loving couple who just get unlucky, versus some guy who gets **** faced at the pub and has unprotected sex with an equally ****-faced girl in a back alley, and it's the former case which I think matters when we consider the morality of sex; especially as I think it's not just a reproductive act in human psychology.
hear hear! i can add rational reasons to your preference against one night stands - high probability of causing the spread of disease for starters!
ah, so you do subscribe to the black sea deluge theory (a fairly well evidenced one) - atleast you have some brains
you act as if you have real solid grounds to say homosexuality is bad - you don't
he did neither, he sent superstitious followers who killed off cats, who could have reduced the problem, because they were "evil" and therefore were automatically the cause
your "Basic sense of moral" is BASED off the bible - making that statement circular logicPart of it yes, but it's not based mearly on the bible. It's alos based on the basics of human society.
Those aren't analogous to religion - religion INSPIRES violence, hatred, bigotry and ignorance
no ****, however YOU DON'T HAVE RIGHTS UNTIL YOU'RE AND INDIVIDUAL - infact there is no "you" until then. A foetus is not a person, it does not have rights, even if it did the mothers right's come first - you cannot be required to give up your bodily integrity for the sake of another. Once a featus becomes and individual it has rights - and it has those retroactively.
Miscariages can happen. And you can also be run ver by a car. Does that mean I can kill you now, since chances are that you might not even reach the end of your natural life cycle?
false analogy and avoiding the issue
[/qote]
No, it's not. You claimed that a fetus is not guaranteed to grow, and I demonstrated that you'r not guarnateed to grow old. What we do know however is - what WILL happen if everything goes Ok. the child will be born and you will row old.QuoteA fetus is a human - it has the destinct DNA, it feeds and it grows.
Humans aren't special. there are many cells in my body that have distinct DNA, there are subparts of cells that have seperate DNA than the cell itself. HAving unique DNA, and feeding and growing doesn't make something an individual. Nor is human life special
Now THIS is a false analogy. A cell alone does not a human make, but a fetus is a cluster of GROWING cells that has the NDS imprint of the final human it will become. And the first thing that is formed IS the brain.
This is exactly what you mean; you're determining what is and what is not meant by the bible on a personal basis and being interpretative over the meaning of the book.
Well, it's been pretty much proven to lead to deaths due to aids; whether or not you like pre-marital sex, there's no question that it occurs, and no question that the Vatican launching a campaign to stop and scare people from using condoms, or deny access to sexual advice in Africa, only hurts people. Surely telling people condoms are ineffective against aids using reasoning known to be wrong (aids viral size vs condom pore size whilst ingoring the transmission medium) - i.e. lying - must be a sin?
The whole crux of the abortion arguement is about the present situation, not future. At present, I am a sentient human being, ergo your analogy is completely wrong. Perhaps a more appropriate example would be if I was brain-dead and on life support with an unknown prognosis? (if we wish to reflect the physical situation of the foetus more accurately).
Killed cats? WTF? :wtf:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubonic_plague
your "Basic sense of moral" is BASED off the bible - making that statement circular logicPart of it yes, but it's not based mearly on the bible. It's alos based on the basics of human society.
That not what the religion stands for, in fact it is against such things. Alltough some people see only what they want to see.
Cute. It is a LIVING thing,
it is a human
...but since it doesn't have individuality yet, it's OK to kill it?
"You have no rights, as you are not yet worthy of them" - that sentance was repetated again and again in history only to give more previliges to those that allready had them.
Yes, I can compare this to slavery and racism.
No, it's not. You claimed that a fetus is not guaranteed to grow, and I demonstrated that you'r not guarnateed to grow old. What we do know however is - what WILL happen if everything goes Ok. the child will be born and you will row old.
A cell alone does not a human make,
but a fetus is a cluster of GROWING cells that has the NDS imprint of the final human it will become.
And the first thing that is formed IS the brain.
And the analogy is not correct either. In 90% (if not more) cases the baby will be born just fine. And I wouldn't call the baby brain-dead either. It has a brain (alltough a very small one, it does function).
This is not MY interpretation. This is a scientific fact that hte flooding took place and this is how vatican enterprets that.
I'm not entirely pleased with he waay the Church handeled this, but it's not asin by a longshot...and they are right that the ONLY 100% effective preventions is abstinence. Well, either that or je*** off but given the number of children they have in africe and how many die of deseases and hunger.. I'd say abstinence is better.
Is it all about the present situation, or do you WANT it to be about the present. I guess I could call you shortsighted.
And the analogy is not correct either. In 90% (if not more) cases the baby will be born just fine. And I wouldn't call the baby brain-dead either. It has a brain (alltough a very small one, it does function).
Mah..this discussion is nothing more than a waste of my time.
Why is non-reproductive sex considered bad, again?
1 Corinthians 7:3-5
The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
The reason why it is accurate to blame christians is that it was brought to america by christians in the late 1800s as a "cure to masturbation" (they KNEW it reduced sexual pleasure) - specifically Dr Kellogg (as in frosted flakes). It was then carried on with junk science that I still faith to fathom how it doesn't get laughed out of peer reviewed journals in the US to this day (And does get laughed out elsewhere).
The practice was restarted by christians to deprive boys of sexual pleasure. It serves no other purpose.
Galatians 5:2
Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all.
Whether or not it was Christians doing it, it was a means of control, not a Christian principle:QuoteGalatians 5:2
Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all.
Why is non-reproductive sex considered bad, again?
Setting aside the fact that sex and reproduction are intrinsically linked, at no time is sex considered "bad" within the context of marriage:Quote1 Corinthians 7:3-5
The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
And non-marital sex?
(note; sex and bonding are also intrinsically linked, too, as strongly as sex and reproduction are)
like my parents denomination (ELCA Lutheran)
like my parents denomination (ELCA Lutheran)
Must be just an ELCA thing then. I'm LCMS Lutheran and I don't believe many people in my congregation were circumsized even just for tradition.
like my parents denomination (ELCA Lutheran)
Must be just an ELCA thing then. I'm LCMS Lutheran and I don't believe many people in my congregation were circumsized even just for tradition.
my parents didn't do it for religious reasons - my point was it's NOT an ELCA thing, but they did it anyway (hoodwinked by trash science) - and I hear people from demoniations that don't practice it say they're doing it "for religious reasons"
And non-marital sex?
(note; sex and bonding are also intrinsically linked, too, as strongly as sex and reproduction are)
Propably stronger, because there has to be some reason why human females have hidden ovulation and why getting human females pregnant can be quite difficult. Unless it's a 17-year old Catholic chick, then you just have to cum in her general direction and voila
my parents didn't do it for religious reasons - my point was it's NOT an ELCA thing, but they did it anyway (hoodwinked by trash science) - and I hear people from demoniations that don't practice it say they're doing it "for religious reasons"
And non-marital sex?
(note; sex and bonding are also intrinsically linked, too, as strongly as sex and reproduction are)
And non-marital sex?
(note; sex and bonding are also intrinsically linked, too, as strongly as sex and reproduction are)
Indeed, to support your second point here, the Bible seems to treat sex as defining marriage. In other words, if you have sex with someone, you automatically marry them, in the most basic sense -- the "two become one flesh" principle. This is why if two unmarried people had sex, the man had to take the woman as his wife and support her, whereas if two married people have sex, they had to be stoned.
Yes but as you are so fond of telling us, the laws of the old testement no longer apply to you. So I have to ask where in the new testement does it say that?
What about when 1 or both people are married but in the process of a lengthy divorce or seperation procedure?
Yes but as you are so fond of telling us, the laws of the old testement no longer apply to you. So I have to ask where in the new testement does it say that?
I'm guessing that first "you" is plural, since I don't recall saying that specifically. We are no longer "trapped" by legalistic adherence to the law, but we still have to obey God. The principle behind all those lists of stipulations is simply that God intended marriage to be special, and it should be treated as such, not dragged through the dirt. If we obey the underlying principle, the rest of it will naturally follow. Marriage should be treated holistically, taking the good with the bad, and not entered into lightly. Sex can't be isolated from everything else because it's an integral part of the whole marriage covenant.What about when 1 or both people are married but in the process of a lengthy divorce or seperation procedure?
The Biblical prescription for divorce is for the husband to give the wife a certificate of divorce and then send her away, so there's a specific defining moment for when it happens. Nevertheless, God expresses quite clearly that although he permits divorce, he hates it.
Why does God hate divorce? Particularly from, say, a loveless marriage that was formed on the basis of a single first shag and then regretted afterwards (because the whole sex-as-selection psychology doesn't exactly mesh well with marry-straight-after-first-sex)?
whereas if two married people have sex, they had to be stoned.
my parents didn't do it for religious reasons - my point was it's NOT an ELCA thing, but they did it anyway (hoodwinked by trash science) - and I hear people from demoniations that don't practice it say they're doing it "for religious reasons"
Is that bolded word deliberate word play or a typo? :nervous:
In this context it could be both... :lol:
...but we still have to obey God.
Why does God hate divorce? Particularly from, say, a loveless marriage that was formed on the basis of a single first shag and then regretted afterwards (because the whole sex-as-selection psychology doesn't exactly mesh well with marry-straight-after-first-sex)?
"Regret" isn't a valid reason for divorce -- IIRC the only Biblical justification for it is adultery or unfaithfulness. Marriage is marriage for better or for worse. That "single first shag" is a mistake that they just have to live with.
From that perspective, sex-as-selection isn't a valid way to select a mate.
There is another, Biblically permitted, way to select a mate on the basis of physical compatibility without having sex -- it's called dancing. ;)
...but we still have to obey God.
Why?
What if I think some of the rules God has been claimed to put upon us feel like crap to me?
Whoops, that wasn't entirely clear. :lol:
I meant if two people who were married, but not married to each other, have sex, they had to be stoned.
...but we still have to obey God.
Why?
What if I think some of the rules God has been claimed to put upon us feel like crap to me?
Further more - how do I know what is God's word to obey? As soon as you show me something that is undoubtedly a divine command (and if it makes some sense to me), I'll do it. Until that, all I see is a book full of rules of which some made some sense in pre-historic times amongst nomadic tribes. Most of the rules aren't sensible even in that context in my opinion. They are just nuisance most of the time. The core of christianity can (should) be summed into all that "treat others as you'd like to be treated" -thing, and that stuff should be just common sense after all.
Anyway, why should I obey a command that makes no sense to me, is wrong in my opinion and of which I have no way of knowing where the rule originally came from? Because *someone* says it's God's word? Well surprize, there are other sources as well claimed to be the word of God. Or gods. :rolleyes:
Eugenics or Unrestricted DNA experimentation.
Whether or not it was Christians doing it, it was a means of control, not a Christian principle:QuoteGalatians 5:2
Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all.
wee a christian who actually knows what the bible say about the subject! Go Goober
Do they still practice this?
(imagines pastor Joe coming toward me with a butcher knife)
*shudder*
I suppose society needs weight on both ends of the scales. I'm no more in favour of a society that condones fundamentalist or Biblical law any more than I am in favour of a society that condones Eugenics or Unrestricted DNA experimentation.
In many ways Religion, in it's strictest form is a neccesary 'dead weight' that stops science getting too carried away. when Einstein suggested Nuclear power, he did not really dream it would be adapted to create a weapon, many scientists are like that, blissfully unaware of the possible other uses of what they research, or firmly in the belief that no-one would be stupid enough to. Theres always someone stupid enough to.
That's why the whole 'religion and morals' thing will never really be sorted out, Each one provides a Dynamo that powers the other in some way. Take a look at how much energy has been put into solidifying our concepts of Evolution, thanks to ID.
I'm guessing that first "you" is plural, since I don't recall saying that specifically.I thought it was you who had made a new covenant argument in the past but seeing as I can only find posts from Stealth and Liberator on the matter I could be wrong.
We are no longer "trapped" by legalistic adherence to the law, but we still have to obey God. The principle behind all those lists of stipulations is simply that God intended marriage to be special, and it should be treated as such, not dragged through the dirt.
I could however make similar arguments about slavery. The bible goes on at great length about the rules for slavery and who may or may not be one. Surely that was also God's Will then too. So why is slavery not morally acceptable to christians now when the bible say that it is? What changed?
If you have a different explaination for why certain rules in the OT no longer apply to you I'm all ears.
I could however make similar arguments about slavery. The bible goes on at great length about the rules for slavery and who may or may not be one. Surely that was also God's Will then too. So why is slavery not morally acceptable to christians now when the bible say that it is? What changed?
If you have a different explaination for why certain rules in the OT no longer apply to you I'm all ears.
It's kind of a weird situation that I don't fully understand myself. :) Theologically the law was never retired, but rather fulfilled/satisfied through Jesus. We're not bound by it, but that doesn't mean we can ignore it. We are told, even in the New Testament, to follow God's commandments, but at the same time, we are taught not to be trapped by legalism. So it's kind of complicated. An approach I've found useful is to look for the underlying principle and try to follow that.
So, for example, rules on haircuts IMHO are merely a specific application of the general principle "set yourself apart for God". Rules on sex on the other hand follow directly from God's design for marriage.
If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life. -- Exodus 21:22-23
Keep in mind that just because the Bible gives instructions for something doesn't mean God condones it. The Bible gave prescriptions for divorce but God hates divorce. The Bible gave prescriptions for a king immediately after God ordered the Israelites not to ask for a king. There are also distinctions between ideals and realities. Ideally, there would be no war, but war happens. Ideally, everyone would be single and solely devoted to God, but marriage is necessary for the propagation and organization of society.
I think God made certain concessions (in a practical sense, not in a moral sense) because of the established culture. Given that slavery was a normal and common practice everywhere*, God made certain prescriptions to ensure that slavery was ordered rather than chaotic. Also keep in mind that slavery on Earth is quite unimportant in the grand scheme of things. I think the Biblical position is summed up when Paul says, "Are you a slave? Don't let it trouble you -- although if you can gain your freedom, do so."
I suppose society needs weight on both ends of the scales. I'm no more in favour of a society that condones fundamentalist or Biblical law any more than I am in favour of a society that condones Eugenics or Unrestricted DNA experimentation.
In many ways Religion, in it's strictest form is a neccesary 'dead weight' that stops science getting too carried away. when Einstein suggested Nuclear power, he did not really dream it would be adapted to create a weapon, many scientists are like that, blissfully unaware of the possible other uses of what they research, or firmly in the belief that no-one would be stupid enough to. Theres always someone stupid enough to.
That's why the whole 'religion and morals' thing will never really be sorted out, Each one provides a Dynamo that powers the other in some way. Take a look at how much energy has been put into solidifying our concepts of Evolution, thanks to ID.
Bull****.
You don't have to make a stupid hyperbole and strawman - show me important people who support Eugenics - which is not based on anything to "weigh on both ends". Besides, why do you have? If "the other side" - whatever that means, duhh, there are usually more choices than 2 - has nothing concrete to show, why should we give them even benefit of doubt.
I mean, it's awesome and easy to pick a certain point about history of science and then use it as a fodder for cool strawman against some theoretical religious philosophy, but please.
1 : Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it stupid or 'Bull****'. Please learn to debate like an Adult.
2 : Do you know the opinions of every scientists etc? You've done exactly what Kazan was warning against, jumping to conclusions using your own opinion of 'Eugenics'.
3 : I actually have trouble figuring out what you're saying at the end of your post, it doesn't really make much sense, but as far as I can tell, you're trying to twist my post to make it look like an attack on one or the other ways of thinking, though you're not exactly clear which. An odd conclusion to make from a post saying we need both.
I suppose society needs weight on both ends of the scales. I'm no more in favour of a society that condones fundamentalist or Biblical law any more than I am in favour of a society that condones Eugenics or Unrestricted DNA experimentation... because there are so many powerful figures and individuals openly rallying for and supporting strict eugenism. But that's besides the point: If the other argument is based on empirical proof and other in fairy tells and gut feelings, the more rational explanation will get benefit of doubt and does not need as close scrutiny as the more unsound one - in this particular context, of course.
In many ways Religion, in it's strictest form is a neccesary 'dead weight' that stops science getting too carried away. when Einstein suggested Nuclear power, he did not really dream it would be adapted to create a weapon, many scientists are like that, blissfully unaware of the possible other uses of what they research, or firmly in the belief that no-one would be stupid enough to. Theres always someone stupid enough to.Moral exists even without religion.
do you have one SHRED of evidence to support the bible being anything more than a work of fiction that makes vague legenderized references to some events that once actually happened (such as the flooding of the black sea)
Vasectomy or ligature of the Fallopian tubes is no remedy against concupiscence; and even if it were, mutilation could not be permitted as a means of avoiding temptation. The operation would open the door to immoral practices which would constitute a worse evil than the one avoided.
Heh, basically it's the assumption that if people were sterilised, they'd all run around fornicating all the time, which the Church considered immoral.
do you have one SHRED of evidence to support the bible being anything more than a work of fiction that makes vague legenderized references to some events that once actually happened (such as the flooding of the black sea)
but that's just the point - I don't need any evidence (at least not anything you would accept as evidence).
Have you ever looked at what the wrod faith means in the dictonary?
You're asking for proof of something that cannot be proven (by basic logic - God is above the laws that govern this universe) and that is in a way illogical by itself :D
...
On another note, people allways seem to firget that everything written in the bible isn't a commandment from God.
The 10 Commandments are. The teachings of Jesus are.
For b) I can say - how do you know it's not concious even in a small part?
Just a lump of "parasitic cells"? A brain is nothing but a bunch of cells.
Heck even trees and grass have some level of conciousness, at least according to the latest scientific research.
Is it then possible that a fetus does have some level of conciousness?
We are starstuff, we are the universe made manifest, trying to figure itself out.
do you have one SHRED of evidence to support the bible being anything more than a work of fiction that makes vague legenderized references to some events that once actually happened (such as the flooding of the black sea)
but that's just the point - I don't need any evidence (at least not anything you would accept as evidence).
Have you ever looked at what the wrod faith means in the dictonary?
You're asking for proof of something that cannot be proven (by basic logic - God is above the laws that govern this universe) and that is in a way illogical by itself :DIsnt that rather convienient?
Isnt that rather convienient?
Isnt that rather convienient?
Isn't that rather irrevelant?
That's how you interpret it. But then again you can point to other parts of the bible where you're saying God says one thing and the bible quite clearly states another. For instance you have claimed repeatedly that abortion is basically murder yet the bible doesn't claim this anywhere and in fact appears to give the underlying principle that until birth a baby isn't worth anything.QuoteIf men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life. -- Exodus 21:22-23
Explain to me how the underlying principle there isn't that the death of a foetus isn't considered murder by God? Cause as far as I can see you simply twist the underlying principle to fit whatever you want it to be.
And here was me thinking that God's Laws were meant to be God telling his people how to live not some politician who has to compromise based on what was the prevalent attitude at the time.
FYI, a brain is a bunch of cells with significant and unique EEG patterns indicating neurological responce (cognition) in response to stimuli. Of course, we can ignore EEG readings and regard and clump of cells - say a mould infection, or a tumurous growth, as being the same as a human being.
I would note we can measure consciousness and cognition through EEG readings and also the physical capacity. Trashman, please try and form a semi-scientifically coherent arguement next time you attempt a ridiculous strawman.
...
On another note, people allways seem to firget that everything written in the bible isn't a commandment from God.
The 10 Commandments are. The teachings of Jesus are.
Let's see how you react to this:
I don't think so.
See? I just made just as valid an argument as you did. You say they are god's commandments, I doubt it very much since I find the whole existence of such a being in the first place very much a doubtable thing, and so do quite a few other people. Actually
That some people belive that bible/parts of it are word from God doesn't necessarily make them so. If they are, they are, but they might as well not be. I have no knowledge of such a thing, just a word from some people who say that the commandments are what they claim to be...
This, however, does not really lead to anything because there are quite a few different opinions considering the Bible, and even more considering every other holy book ever written/inspired/whatever. These opinions are also called beliefs or perceptions and they are difficult to change, so I just say that you may have your belief of what Bible is and I have my own, and as long as it keeps between our ears it's just that - our own opinion.
However, when we start debating some matter (subject not relevant) and start making arguments and counter-arguments based on those personal beliefs, things get more difficult to define.
My opinion is that authorities and dogmae are a worse thing to have in your head than ability to think through things yourself. Even if they came from God, which I doubt very much.
Your opinion is (apparently, correct if I'm very wrong) that some of the claimed commandments from God are guidelines that should be followed because of the factoid that they came from God.
I think most of the "commandments" areImmanuel Kant completely with reason just a bunch of applications of common sense. And as I've said, there is even a philosophical formalization of moral/ethic principle that practically equals the core of christianity, and it was derived by ing. Basically it says that you should always act according to a way that could in your opinion become a common moral guideline.
Which is excactly the same thing Jesus said about doing to others what you would like to be done to yourself. It's just philosophy, granted it's a good idea but I don't see the point in following rules just because they exist.
No, I'm not an anarchist; I understand the need of laws and happen to agree with both of them, and even if I don't agree with them I still do as they say... but I don't understand why there should be any kind of a common set of moral rules as absolute truths. People should figure out those things themselves. After all, looking back at history, telling people what to do or how to think has not worked nearly perfectly. People tend to do what they feel to be right, regardless of what they're told to be right.
There are reasons for most of the rules mentioned in the Bible, but many of those rules I don't agree with, because I don't agree with the reasons behind them. If there are no reasons specified, I don't see any point of agreeing with the rule, unless I can think of good enough reason by myself.
FYI, a brain is a bunch of cells with significant and unique EEG patterns indicating neurological responce (cognition) in response to stimuli. Of course, we can ignore EEG readings and regard and clump of cells - say a mould infection, or a tumurous growth, as being the same as a human being.
I would note we can measure consciousness and cognition through EEG readings and also the physical capacity. Trashman, please try and form a semi-scientifically coherent arguement next time you attempt a ridiculous strawman.
Again, are EEG patterns == consiousness ? Are you really sure that this is the relation? Or are EEG patterns merely one of the visible sideeffects of human conciosuness (by adults)?đCan you realyl say that other types/forms of conciousness don't exist?
That's how you interpret it. But then again you can point to other parts of the bible where you're saying God says one thing and the bible quite clearly states another. For instance you have claimed repeatedly that abortion is basically murder yet the bible doesn't claim this anywhere and in fact appears to give the underlying principle that until birth a baby isn't worth anything.QuoteIf men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life. -- Exodus 21:22-23
Explain to me how the underlying principle there isn't that the death of a foetus isn't considered murder by God? Cause as far as I can see you simply twist the underlying principle to fit whatever you want it to be.
That passage says nothing directly about whether it's murder or not; it merely describes the punishment. In the same chapter, it specifies that the penalty for murdering a fellow Israelite is death, but the penalty for murdering a slave is merely "punishment" (probably a fine, in accordance with the other slavery examples). So although they're both murder, they warrant different penalties. I would assume the same would apply to the passage you quoted.
Other passages in the Bible, such as Psalm 51:5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=23&chapter=51&verse=5&version=31&context=verse) and Luke 1:41 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%201:41;&version=31;), indicate that the unborn child counts as a human being even from conception. So my interpretation is that deliberately killing an unborn child is murder.
God is always described as working through a process. Things happen over time, according to God's schedule, which is often much longer than humanity's schedule. If God demanded perfection immediately, many people would view it as impossibly hard and give up before even trying. God works by growing people (and civilizations) into maturity over time.
So I belive the Churchs version and not only becouse they make perfect sense...
So in other words God attibutes a lesser value to the lives of slaves and unborn children. He doesn't condone slavery but he thinks that the life of a slave is worth less than that of a fellow Israelite.
QuoteGod is always described as working through a process. Things happen over time, according to God's schedule, which is often much longer than humanity's schedule. If God demanded perfection immediately, many people would view it as impossibly hard and give up before even trying. God works by growing people (and civilizations) into maturity over time.
Fair enough but how many of the things currently in the bible are still wrong. How many are against God's Plan? Had someone claimed during the time of the OT that slavery was wrong all the Jews would have been up in arms about it. The bible quite clearly stated God's views on slavery and it was okay as long as you enslaved the right kinds of people.
You now say that God is against slavery but because humans weren't ready for that yet it was regulated. Fine. But how do you know that other views you currently believe are also true and fully endorsed by God aren't actually similar regulations? And that at some point in the future God won't clarify them better too? It's quite possible that things you believe to be part of God's plan were actually simply included just because it would be too hard to get people not to accept them.
Matthew 19:3-9
Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"
Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
Apparently so. But then, wouldn't murdering a king carry a greater penalty than murdering a civilian (for example)? Graduated punishment isn't unheard-of.
Because the people weren't ready for a complete ban on divorce, the OT law allowed divorce with certain regulations. Because OT (and NT) people weren't ready for a complete ban on slavery, the OT law allowed slavery with certain regulations.
Your last point is quite right... I don't know that there are or aren't things that are permitted currently but which aren't God's true intentions. However I'm fairly sure that there would be hints to point the way.
So in other words God attibutes a lesser value to the lives of slaves and unborn children. He doesn't condone slavery but he thinks that the life of a slave is worth less than that of a fellow Israelite.
Apparently so. But then, wouldn't murdering a king carry a greater penalty than murdering a civilian (for example)? Graduated punishment isn't unheard-of.
"Let me give you a little inside information about God. God likes to watch. He's a prankster. Think about it. He gives man instincts. He gives you this extraordinary gift, and then what does He do, I swear for His own amusement, his own private, cosmic gag reel, He sets the rules in opposition. It's the goof of all time. Look but don't touch. Touch, but don't taste. Taste, don't swallow. Ahaha. And while you're jumpin' from one foot to the next, what is he doing? He's laughin' His sick, ****in' ass off! He's a tight-ass! He's a SADIST! He's an absentee landlord! Worship that? NEVER! "
"Let me give you a little inside information about God. God likes to watch. He's a prankster. Think about it. He gives man instincts. He gives you this extraordinary gift, and then what does He do, I swear for His own amusement, his own private, cosmic gag reel, He sets the rules in opposition. It's the goof of all time. Look but don't touch. Touch, but don't taste. Taste, don't swallow. Ahaha. And while you're jumpin' from one foot to the next, what is he doing? He's laughin' His sick, ****in' ass off! He's a tight-ass! He's a SADIST! He's an absentee landlord! Worship that? NEVER! "
Dave Allen right?
Al Pacino, The Devil's Advocate.