NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't understand it. Why do people insist that they should do things regardless of morality because: "God demands it!"


Slobodan Milosevic, the architect of the Yugoslav Civil War that killed a million or more people, told all Orthodox Serbs to take up arms with him to kill all non Christians in Yugoslavia.

Pope Urban II commanded all Christians to go to Jerusalem to "Kill for Jesus", and even launched a Crusade of children!!!

And even still as I look through these forums I saw someone mention something about one should not question what their Pastor or whatever says, because it is gods will. Do they not realize that this is not what "God" wants, but rather said Pastor manipulating them to do things like this???


(That being said, I am not very religious.....at all...)

If God is the Author of morality, who are we not to do what He says?

And just because there were people who used bits of Scripture to fuel their fire, does not mean that they were following God's will. So far as I know, Slobadan Milsoevic did nothing but say "Us against them." The "Us" happened to be the EO and the "them" happened to be the Muslims.

If God is the Author of morality, who are we not to do what He says?

And just because there were people who used bits of Scripture to fuel their fire, does not mean that they were following God's will. So far as I know, Slobadan Milsoevic did nothing but say "Us against them." The "Us" happened to be the EO and the "them" happened to be the Muslims.

He used Christianity as the fuel to his fire.


However, if someone told me that it was God's will to kill all Muslims, I would tell him to piss off.

EDIT: That statement of yours bothers me though. You say that if God told you to kill all non Christians, you would?

(That being said, I am not very religious.....at all...)

Join the club. My fragments of religious belief are what i logically deduce.

(Example: there is one god because there is no way multiple gods could cooperate, thus a war would start between them. Since said war is not there, there is one God)

Join the club. My fragments of religious belief are what i logically deduce.

(Example: there is one god because there is no way multiple gods could cooperate, thus a war would start between them. Since said war is not there, there is one God)

You didnt logically deduce that because it doesnt follow logically.

If God is the Author of morality, who are we not to do what He says?

Human beings gifted with the power of reasoning, free will, and freedom of action.

A human being ready to surrender his free will to anything or anyone loses his very humanity.

Even if an hypothetical omniscient and omnipotent God or other superior being would command me to act in a way that I, as a human, found objectionable according to my very own moral values of compassion, understanding, and tolerance, I would not obey. But I would be very surprised at such an event. Because, obviously, if were created by an all-powerful being, that being gave us free our free will. On purpose. Because s/he/it intended us to make good use of it.

Those who surrender their free will to others are nothing but mindless sheep.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Srebrenica6.jpg
Serb orthodox priest blessing a paramilitary group right before they committed the srebrenica massacre.

Religion is an excuse for violence today as much as it was during the crusades time.

One question I have, is it logical to lame the religion for the actions of its adherents?

Join the club. My fragments of religious belief are what i logically deduce.

(Example: there is one god because there is no way multiple gods could cooperate, thus a war would start between them. Since said war is not there, there is one God)

Or there simply is no god at all.

Human beings gifted with the power of reasoning, free will, and freedom of action.

A human being ready to surrender his free will to anything or anyone loses his very humanity.

Even if an hypothetical omniscient and omnipotent God or other superior being would command me to act in a way that I, as a human, found objectionable according to my very own moral values of compassion, understanding, and tolerance, I would not obey. But I would be very surprised at such an event. Because, obviously, if were created by an all-powerful being, that being gave us free our free will. On purpose. Because s/he/it intended us to make good use of it.

Those who surrender their free will to others are nothing but mindless sheep.


You are a good person for that, as a frightening number of people in the world wouldn't see it that way. I myself am like you.

He used Christianity as the fuel to his fire.


However, if someone told me that it was God's will to kill all Muslims, I would tell him to piss off.

EDIT: That statement of yours bothers me though. You say that if God told you to kill all non Christians, you would?

If God told me to do that, I would. But God hasn't told me to do that, and what the Bible says about His nature makes it very highly unlikely that He would.

Human beings gifted with the power of reasoning, free will, and freedom of action.

A human being ready to surrender his free will to anything or anyone loses his very humanity.

Even if an hypothetical omniscient and omnipotent God or other superior being would command me to act in a way that I, as a human, found objectionable according to my very own moral values of compassion, understanding, and tolerance, I would not obey. But I would be very surprised at such an event. Because, obviously, if were created by an all-powerful being, that being gave us free our free will. On purpose. Because s/he/it intended us to make good use of it.

Those who surrender their free will to others are nothing but mindless sheep.

Well, you have surrendered yours to Satan, so God have mercy on you and may you repent and confess Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Srebrenica6.jpg
Serb orthodox priest blessing a paramilitary group right before they committed the srebrenica massacre.

Religion is an excuse for violence today as much as it was during the crusades time.

One question I have, is it logical to lame the religion for the actions of its adherents?



When the action is carried out by its adherents, sometimes it is. However, when it turns into out right "racism" of sorts, no. This thread isn't about blaming religion for the worlds evils. Its basically about why people buy into it so easily.

I guess poor education in these parts of the world play a big role in it. However Yugoslavia was a very industrialized, educated country, which is sad. Sarajevo was among the most beautiful cities in the world. Now its.....just ruins.

You are a good person for that, as a frightening number of people in the world wouldn't see it that way. I myself am like you.
Glad to hear I'm not the last sane person on this planet. Cheers.

If God told me to do that, I would. But God hasn't told me to do that, and what the Bible says about His nature makes it very highly unlikely that He would.

Then let us all hope you never develop schizophrenia or another mental condition that causes you to imagine God is talking to you.

Well, you have surrendered yours to Satan, so God have mercy on you and may you repent and confess Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior.

If being capable of individual thought and practicing tolerance and understanding means following satan, then so be it.

Well, you have surrendered yours to Satan, so God have mercy on you and may you repent and confess Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior.


I believe that just because someone doesn't believe in Christianity, doesn't mean they'll go to hell. I'm religious enough to believe in a heaven and hell. I also believe in a God which believes that if a person lives a good life, he can go to heaven. If he was evil, he goes to hell.


Even if you're an Atheist, it doesn't matter. Thats the God I worship. Not the angry, vengeful god most people have.

Well, you have surrendered yours to Satan, so God have mercy on you and may you repent and confess Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior.
Save your bullshit preaching for others. I uphold the values professed by Jesus much more than you ever will if you were ready to murder your fellow human beings and surrender your very humanity so easily.

False Gods abound, but true honesty and compassion is hard to come by. I might not be a believer, but I defend the values that Jesus held dear more ferociously than most so-called "men of faith".

If being capable of individual thought and practicing tolerance and understanding means following satan, then so be it.

That's the problem. That's the lie. You can be free thinking and be a Christian. In fact it's required, though many would like you to believe otherwise. The reason I follow Christ is because I am free thinking: I've rejected all the stuff that's been shoved at me by those in authority.

I believe that just because someone doesn't believe in Christianity, doesn't mean they'll go to hell. I'm religious enough to believe in a heaven and hell. I also believe in a God which believes that if a person lives a good life, he can go to heaven. If he was evil, he goes to hell.


Even if you're an Atheist, it doesn't matter. Thats the God I worship. Not the angry, vengeful god most people have.

What is a good life? The Bible says no one has one, except God and the angels.

That's the problem. That's the lie. You can be free thinking and be a Christian. In fact it's required, though many would like you to believe otherwise. The reason I follow Christ is because I am free thinking: I've rejected all the stuff that's been shoved at me by those in authority.

You said having free will and practicing the morals of tolerance and understanding means following satan. You explicitly said that having free will/thought is against christianity.

Save your bullshit preachin to others. I uphold the values professed by Jesus much more than you ever will if you were ready to murder your fellow human beings and surrender your very humanity to another.

False Gods abound, but true honesty and compassion is hard to come by. I might not be a believer, but I defend the values that Jesus held dear more ferociously than most so-called "men of faith".

Well one of the values Jesus held dear was that He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. That is perhaps the value which was most dear to Him. Pretty exclusive if you ask me.

What is a good life? The Bible says no one has one, except God and the angels.

The bible says many, many things.

You said having free will and practicing the morals of tolerance and understanding means following satan. You explicitly said that having free will/thought is against christianity.

No. I said nothing against free thought. There was no mention of it in his post after the first sentence.

And free will in nonexistent. We have free agency (free choice) but not free will. Our will (what we desire) is bound to sin (or so the Bible teaches) and therefore, is anything but free. But this distinction of terms is not commonly made.

The bible says many, many things.

And? If it's the Word of God, ought it not to be believed?

Well one of the values Jesus held dear was that He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. That is perhaps the value which was most dear to Him. Pretty exclusive if you ask me.

No, it was not. That is what the Church says. Not what Jesus himself said.

The value Jesus held most dear to him was for all of us to love each other.

Please, do not pretend to give me lessons on the teachings of Jesus until you actually take the time to open your New Testament and read the four Gospels. If an agnostic such as myself takes the time to read them thoroughly, I'd imagine all so-called Christians should at least do the same. Sadly enough, I was proven mistaken on that point too many times to count.

What is a good life? The Bible says no one has one, except God and the angels.

The old testament was a bunch of fairy tales written by people who didn't understand the world. Some of it is actually based on fact (Moses, the Ark, etc). However the majority (Adam and Eve) just isnt. Science has proven that.


The New Testament has been bastardized over the centuries by the Catholic Church, and changed to project the message that they wanted it to project. Example: Jesus was not originally considered Divine, and was not worshipped. That changed after the Nycenia meeting between Emperor Constantine (I believe) and the Bishops and Cardinals of the Roman Empire, who decided he was.

So just because "The Bible" says something, don't take it as all facts because remember: It was written by men.

And? If it's the Word of God, ought it not to be believed?

The bible is a collection of books written by men, assembled by men, printed by men, and translated by men. Our free will and critical thinking is the tool we need to use in order to separate the good grain from the bad, to quote some famous guy.

And? If it's the Word of God, ought it not to be believed?

The word of god was edited and modified extensively over time. Ever heard of the book of enoch?

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

What is a good life? The Bible says no one has one, except God and the angels.

The Bible also says that pi is 3.

Well, guys, I think our collective point is made regarding the bible being the "word of god".

The Bible also says that pi is 3.

3.141521 is Satan trying to confuse you from God's holy trinity.

The Bible also says that pi is 3.

That's true.

1 kings 7:23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

Religious fundies are hypocrites, plain and simple.

If God is the Author of morality, who are we not to do what He says?

And how can you be absolutely certain that any given Pastor/Preacher/Priest/Rabbi/Imam etc. is telling his flock what God wants, rather than what the religious leader in question wants? How is this man's interpretation of God's will more valid than mine or yours? How do you know he isn't manipulating his flock?

If God is the Author of morality, who are we not to do what He says?
Wait... so, if God came to me and told me to kill my family, it would be right to do that?

Sorry, I doubt that will hold up in court.

If God told me to do that, I would. But God hasn't told me to do that, and what the Bible says about His nature makes it very highly unlikely that He would.

Your views on human life make me queezy and scared. You would endorse genocide, rape, and murder if God said it was okay?

Sorry, I doubt that will hold up in court.

They'll probably let you off on insanity defense, or the fact that you're probably not mentally capable to stand trial.

They'll probably let you off on insanity defense, or the fact that you're probably not mentally capable to stand trial.
Possibly. Still, if there was any justice, they'd stick my in an immigrant detainment camp or whatever was all the rage these days.

Your views on human life make me queezy and scared. You would endorse genocide, rape, and murder if God said it was okay?
You have to keep in mind that God is well...GOD. He has perfect judgment.

Human beings gifted with the power of reasoning, free will, and freedom of action.

A human being ready to surrender his free will to anything or anyone loses his very humanity.

Even if an hypothetical omniscient and omnipotent God or other superior being would command me to act in a way that I, as a human, found objectionable according to my very own moral values of compassion, understanding, and tolerance, I would not obey. But I would be very surprised at such an event. Because, obviously, if were created by an all-powerful being, that being gave us free our free will. On purpose. Because s/he/it intended us to make good use of it.

Those who surrender their free will to others are nothing but mindless sheep.

Quoted because it's just too good not to repeat. Thank you for saying this.

Well, you have surrendered yours to Satan, so God have mercy on you and may you repent and confess Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior.

That is uncalled for, don't you think? You are presuming to know (A) what Skaladora is about as a person and (B) the will and mind of God.

Or are you saying that God did not make human beings with free will, but that Satan somehow installed it in us? Or God gave it to us but doesn't want us to use it? Or what?

Pope Urban II commanded all Christians to go to Jerusalem to "Kill for Jesus", and even launched a Crusade of children!!!

Pope Urban II launched the Children's Crusade? The one that occured 113 years after he died (died 1099, Children's Crusade 1212)? Wow, I'm impressed.

You have to keep in mind that God is well...GOD. He has perfect judgment.

No. I'm sorry. I believe in a God that isn't an asshat and a God that would send someone to hell for even thinking about murder, rape, etc. I believe in a God that thinks the right way (Western) and isn't a nutjob. My God believes in human rights and freedom, now your God is another story...

Quoted because it's just too good not to repeat. Thank you for saying this.
And most worthy of quoting.

You have to keep in mind that God is well...GOD. He has perfect judgment.

SO does god judge things to be right because they are right, or are things right because god judges them to be so?

Perfect judgement seems to imply the former, in which case right/wrong is seperate from god and would presumably govern god.

That's the problem. That's the lie. You can be free thinking and be a Christian. In fact it's required, though many would like you to believe otherwise. The reason I follow Christ is because I am free thinking: I've rejected all the stuff that's been shoved at me by those in authority.

No, Ed. At the risk of being glib, what you are describing is being free of thinking. All you tell us about yourself in various threads is that you follow the Bible in absolutely everything and that you would do whatever God told you to, up to and including genocide, if you thought it really was God talking. I have asked you many times how you could tell if it was really God talking and not some self-serving false leader or a delusion of your own. I have asked you what basic principles guide you in deciding which of the many contradictory Bible verses should apply in any given situation. You have never answered those questions. So where, then, is the thinking going on with you?

Congrats, Ed. 1000+ posts of absolute bullshit, hipocrosy, ignorance, contradiction and essentially anything else that makes the world a worse place to live in. I'd say that I hope you're proud of yourself, but the sad thing is you probably are, you horrible, horrible person, you.

The New Testament has been bastardized over the centuries by the Catholic Church, and changed to project the message that they wanted it to project. Example: Jesus was not originally considered Divine, and was not worshipped. That changed after the Nycenia meeting between Emperor Constantine (I believe) and the Bishops and Cardinals of the Roman Empire, who decided he was.

It's Nicea.... The council was commissed by Constitine, not for himself, and was between 318 Bishops and Patriarchs from regions all over the Empire [not just Rome](before it was split between East and West after his death), in 325 for the purpose of settling a dispute which had arrisen in the Church of Alexandria (Egypt) between two groups represented on one side by Alexander (Patriarch of Alexandria) and the other Arius (a presbyter in the region)... Arius' position denying the divinity of Christ was ALREADY considered to be heretical, the Council just set out a definitive position of the universal church that it WAS heretical.... Of the 300+ Bishops and Patriarchs assembled from all over the reaches of the empire, only 2 voted in favor of Arius' heresy... Thus settling the dispute, and drafting the Nicene Creed.

The old testament was a bunch of fairy tales written by people who didn't understand the world. Some of it is actually based on fact (Moses, the Ark, etc). However the majority (Adam and Eve) just isnt. Science has proven that.
Science is not the only kind of understanding. I could not agree more fervently that we shouldn't use the Old Testament as a biology or mathematics textbook - but that doesn't mean its authors were primitive people whose spiritual insights should be dismissed with their level of technology. There's a vital distinction to be made between taking the Bible literally and taking it seriously.


The New Testament has been bastardized over the centuries by the Catholic Church, and changed to project the message that they wanted it to project. Example: Jesus was not originally considered Divine, and was not worshipped. That changed after the Nycenia meeting between Emperor Constantine (I believe) and the Bishops and Cardinals of the Roman Empire, who decided he was.
Ever since the Da Vinci Code came out, this argument has gotten increasingly popular. (I'm not saying that's where you're getting your facts, but some do, and it seems strange that those people have no problem with basing their worldview on an admitted piece of fiction while criticizing belief in actual ancient tradition...)

The Council at Nicaea resulted in the Athanasian Creed (according to teh Internetz0r). It was replaced/supplemented by the Nicene Creed some 50 years later. But Bishops and Cardinals don't fabricate these things on a whim after three centuries. The fact that the divinity of Christ was up for debate tells us that some people already believed in it. If you decide that the "heretics" were right to begin with, I can't stop you. You should know, however, that we've got non-Christian sources (the letters of Pliny the Younger, #96, to Trajan) reporting what sounds suspiciously like the divinity of Christ ("chant verses alternately amongst themselves in honour of Christ as if to a god" - Penguin translation) no later than 70 years after Jesus' death (that is, ca. AD 100). The New Testament epistles and the Gospels also seem to support, in nascent form, the doctrine of the Trinity. If you decide that the texts were altered - across the known world... against common belief... on the "whim" of the entire gathered leadership of the Church... without so much as a protest or scrap of alternate manuscript tradition - I can't stop you there either. But by that point, clearly your position would be based as much on paranoia (good heavens, what if it should all be true?) as mine is on faith.

There are arguments to be made about the reliability of the texts; conspiracy theories aren't those arguments.

SO does god judge things to be right because they are right, or are things right because god judges them to be so?

Perfect judgement seems to imply the former, in which case right/wrong is seperate from god and would presumably govern god.

Unless right and wrong are tied to God's nature, as opposed to God's say-so.

Unless right and wrong are tied to God's nature, as opposed to God's say-so.

Indeed ;)

Your metaethics paper gets an A.

Now, despite what my signature, which isn't showing up rigt now, may suggest to people, I am not actually Anti-Christian. I was indeed a christian for a long time, it'd been shoved down my throat for goddess knows how long, and at one point I was so devout I almost became an evangalist, I even 'witnessed' to people on TRAINS.

I've come to realise that was not only wrong, but rather annoying for those people.

I was still a christian, right up until the point where it told me who I was and was not allowed to love. A faith and spiritual path should NOT tell you who you are and who you are not allowed to give your heart to. I left the faith that day, and I've grown so much since then in my understanding that I don't regret it one bit!

As a christian I was religously intolerant of others beliefs, I was good at Religous Education and my mother had studied Theology, but back then I only thought of it as misguided people. This is not true. A persons spiritual path should be personal to them and not dictated to them by others.

I follow Wicca, having discovered it not long ago. I have always had talents that have been condemned by christianity as evil, unless someone declares God gave it to them, and it's something such as healing hands. The ability to see images of the future, talk with the dead, and telepathy were always condemned as evil and those with those talents considered damned. I never liked the idea of being damned, but I have had conversations with the dead, and I have seen some of the future in 'lucided dreaming' states. And ask my boyfriend on the telepathy thing, I annoy the HELL out of him.

Wicca is not following Satan as many christians and indeed myself have been lead to believe. It's a nature based religion based on harmony and understanding of all those around you. It even says that we are to harm none, this includes animals and the like, and that anything we send out comes back at us three-fold.

As I remember, Free Will was something Christianity was all joyous about, Free will to go and worship God and condemn everyone who doesn't. At least, that's how it has always seemed that I can remember.

As my signature says, I have to agree with Ghandi...I like Christ, great bloke, preached love, but the christians do not seem to follow this of loving all. They love all...who agree with them.

As for what it says in the bible..I think Shivan of Oh My Gods! http://ohmygods.timerift.net put it perfectly:
http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/6104/19ak5.jpg

Sorry...long rant. But Fundie's get on my nerves sometimes...even more that I used to be like them, and my grandfather is still.

---
What My signature should say:
"Come the rapture can I have your car?"
"Come the Rapture we'll have the earth to ourselves."

"I like your christ, I do not like your christians, they're so unlike your christ."

"It's YOUR hell, YOU go to it!"

Wiccan and Proud of it!

No. I'm sorry. I believe in a God that isn't an asshat and a God that would send someone to hell for even thinking about murder, rape, etc. I believe in a God that thinks the right way (Western) and isn't a nutjob. My God believes in human rights and freedom, now your God is another story...

You have me all wrong. I have a faith in a god, who believes very much of the same things you believe him to be. HOWEVER, you must understand we personally do not know god, nor can decipher his judgment with absolute accuracy. Perhaps he is kind and loving as all men hope him to be, or maybe he is cold and calculated. If you are like me, maybe you believe one of God's true hopes for humanity is peace..however how can that be achieved with so many different conflicting factions that pledge their actions in his name? Perhaps this can only be achieved by seemingly unforgiveable actions, such as genocide and the like. My argument is simply this, if (and thats a big hypothetical if)YOUR god showed up to your front door and said, kill these people, i doubt you would be capable of saying no, because despite what you think is right and wrong in this world, doesn't change god's ultimate judgment on the issue.


SO does god judge things to be right because they are right, or are things right because god judges them to be so?

Perfect judgement seems to imply the former, in which case right/wrong is seperate from god and would presumably govern god.
If you believe right and wrong govern God, then of course God is simply a puppet of the cosmic universe and is not a God in any sense of the form. The ethics of who god should be does not at all relate to who god really is, and to think so is to think the will of man by majority is greater then god himself. I am of course arguing from an epistimological skeptic perspective.

Indeed ;)
Your metaethics paper gets an A.

Hurrah! Now, if only I could've convinced my philosophy of religion prof that the idea makes sense... ooh, an innocent passerby! Let me give the explanation another shot.


If you believe right and wrong govern God, then of course God is simply a puppet of the cosmic universe and is not a God in any sense of the form. The ethics of who god should be does not at all relate to who god really is, and to think so is to think the will of man by majority is greater then god himself. I am of course arguing from an epistimological skeptic perspective.

Right and wrong are dependent on God - both of us, at least, can agree there. But right and wrong are not dependent simply on God's judgment - as if God might judge differently one day and all of morality be turned on its head. (That's the problem of arbitrary morality... dunno if that's an actual term, but it describes the objection.) Rather, right and wrong are defined by the nature of God, which has not ever and cannot ever change (since God is eternal, i.e. outside of time).

Hurrah! Now, if only I could've convinced my philosophy of religion prof that the idea makes sense...

.


Demand he reads Quinn's essay in the Oxford Hanbook of Ethical Theory, that's the conclusion.

Right and wrong are dependent on God - both of us, at least, can agree there. But right and wrong are not dependent simply on God's judgment - as if God might judge differently one day and all of morality be turned on its head. (That's the problem of arbitrary morality... dunno if that's an actual term, but it describes the objection.) Rather, right and wrong are defined by the nature of God, which has not ever and cannot ever change (since God is eternal, i.e. outside of time).

No, it is still pretty arbitrary. It may be immutable, but it is still arbitrary.

Why is murder wrong? Because it involves the killing of an innocent person. If God had a different nature, would it be any more right? Of course not.

No, it was not. That is what the Church says. Not what Jesus himself said.

The value Jesus held most dear to him was for all of us to love each other.

Please, do not pretend to give me lessons on the teachings of Jesus until you actually take the time to open your New Testament and read the four Gospels. If an agnostic such as myself takes the time to read them thoroughly, I'd imagine all so-called Christians should at least do the same. Sadly enough, I was proven mistaken on that point too many times to count.

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." -- John 14:6

hmm...

Actually, the value Jesus held most dear to him was to "love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind" (Mark 12:28-30) then to love your neighbor as yourself

Science is not the only kind of understanding. I could not agree more fervently that we shouldn't use the Old Testament as a biology or mathematics textbook - but that doesn't mean its authors were primitive people whose spiritual insights should be dismissed with their level of technology. There's a vital distinction to be made between taking the Bible literally and taking it seriously.



Ever since the Da Vinci Code came out, this argument has gotten increasingly popular. (I'm not saying that's where you're getting your facts, but some do, and it seems strange that those people have no problem with basing their worldview on an admitted piece of fiction while criticizing belief in actual ancient tradition...)

The Council at Nicaea resulted in the Athanasian Creed (according to teh Internetz0r). It was replaced/supplemented by the Nicene Creed some 50 years later. But Bishops and Cardinals don't fabricate these things on a whim after three centuries. The fact that the divinity of Christ was up for debate tells us that some people already believed in it. If you decide that the "heretics" were right to begin with, I can't stop you. You should know, however, that we've got non-Christian sources (the letters of Pliny the Younger, #96, to Trajan) reporting what sounds suspiciously like the divinity of Christ ("chant verses alternately amongst themselves in honour of Christ as if to a god" - Penguin translation) no later than 70 years after Jesus' death (that is, ca. AD 100). The New Testament epistles and the Gospels also seem to support, in nascent form, the doctrine of the Trinity. If you decide that the texts were altered - across the known world... against common belief... on the "whim" of the entire gathered leadership of the Church... without so much as a protest or scrap of alternate manuscript tradition - I can't stop you there either. But by that point, clearly your position would be based as much on paranoia (good heavens, what if it should all be true?) as mine is on faith.

There are arguments to be made about the reliability of the texts; conspiracy theories aren't those arguments.
You're generally my hero, with the exception of what i think you're insinuating as far as biology goes. But, it's late here in Indiana, and i still haven't studied much for Greek. I'm about to not care... what with the 4 hours 'fore I wake. meh

If God is the Author of morality, who are we not to do what He says?

And just because there were people who used bits of Scripture to fuel their fire, does not mean that they were following God's will. So far as I know, Slobadan Milsoevic did nothing but say "Us against them." The "Us" happened to be the EO and the "them" happened to be the Muslims.

"If" being, again, the key word here. And even if god should happen to be the "author of morality", how do we know which morality he's the author of? There are countless versions floating around this planet right now...

Its the Fundamentalist mind that is the true danger in the world.
Wether they be Muslim, Chistian, Jew, or anything else, its those that become so blinded to the simplicity of thier own religions message.

1.Dont be a dickhead.
2.Love thy neighbor.

THATS IT.

It never has to get anymore complicated than that, and yet, always there are those who take thier scriptures far too seriously, and become so arrogant as to interperet the "word of God".

They use peices of text to imply that God approves of whatever peice of hate and bigotry they feel like spewing out is justified.

Christian Fundamentalists are as dangerous to America, and Radical Muslims are to the Middle East.

No, it is still pretty arbitrary. It may be immutable, but it is still arbitrary.

Why is murder wrong? Because it involves the killing of an innocent person. If God had a different nature, would it be any more right? Of course not.

Yeah... that's the part my philosophy of religion prof didn't buy either. All I can say before I miss my bus is that positing "If God had a different nature" is the equivalent to saying "If God didn't exist" or "If God wasn't God."

The burden then falls to you to explain what morality is based on, that is not equally arbitrary or more so. I've seen some decent attempts, but not lately. For instance, people could question your example in at least two ways by denying two assumptions that underpin the statement:

1) There are innocent people
2) Life is better than death

What you're talking about is a value judgment, but it is based on certain assumptions about reality. Unless there is a basis for those assumptions, the morality that follows is just as assumed and arbitrary as one that attempts to explain itself by the nature of reality's Creator.

Unless right and wrong are tied to God's nature, as opposed to God's say-so.
Doesn't make a difference; you can just rephrase the same questions to refer to God's "nature" instead of God's judgment.

The question is, in essence, about whether there is such a thing as objective morality, and whether that morality is defined by God or exists independent of God.

A whole lot of religious people will tell you that morality is defined by God, either by His judgment or by the essence of God's all-good nature, but if you ask the right questions you will find that most of them don't actually believe this deep down.

If the all-good God personally informed you that Goodness means torturing and killing kittens, would you do it? Would you feel you were doing Good when you did so?

Now replace "kittens" with "human infants." Same questions.

Most people will tell you that, at the very least, they would have huge reservations and would doubt the Goodness of what they were being asked to do. This indicates that they clearly have a concept of morality that goes beyond "whatever God wants" or "what is in God's nature."

Of course, this is because most religious people are not crazy sociopaths. Most religious people are quite capable of empathy, and empathy is the fundamental foundation of most human morality. Religious people often feel the need to back up their own feelings and beliefs by saying that a super-powered Creator agrees with them, but when you get right down to it they have formed their moral beliefs the same way as anybody else does: by combining their perspective, personality, and judgment with the social and cultural context in which they have lived.

No, it was not. That is what the Church says. Not what Jesus himself said.

The value Jesus held most dear to him was for all of us to love each other.

Please, do not pretend to give me lessons on the teachings of Jesus until you actually take the time to open your New Testament and read the four Gospels. If an agnostic such as myself takes the time to read them thoroughly, I'd imagine all so-called Christians should at least do the same. Sadly enough, I was proven mistaken on that point too many times to count.

"Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
John 14:6

The old testament was a bunch of fairy tales written by people who didn't understand the world. Some of it is actually based on fact (Moses, the Ark, etc). However the majority (Adam and Eve) just isnt. Science has proven that.

No. Science has not proven that.

The New Testament has been bastardized over the centuries by the Catholic Church, and changed to project the message that they wanted it to project. Example: Jesus was not originally considered Divine, and was not worshipped. That changed after the Nycenia meeting between Emperor Constantine (I believe) and the Bishops and Cardinals of the Roman Empire, who decided he was.

If you look in the Bible, Jesus claims to be divine ("I and the FAther are one") and is worshipped (Thomas proclaims to Jesus "My Lord and my God!")

So just because "The Bible" says something, don't take it as all facts because remember: It was written by men.

If it were merely written by men, you would be correct. But it was written by men under the divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit, so it is infallible, because it is the Word of God.

If it were merely written by men, you would be correct. But it was written by men under the divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit, so it is infallible, because it is the Word of God.

And you know that - why? Because the bible says so? Ever heard the term "circular argument"?

The Bible also says that pi is 3.

No, it makes no mention of pi.

The measurments they had were no where near as accurate as they are today. So when the Bible talks about the distance of pi being three it really means the distance of pi is between 2.50 and 3.49 or however accurate we can make their measurments.

And how can you be absolutely certain that any given Pastor/Preacher/Priest/Rabbi/Imam etc. is telling his flock what God wants, rather than what the religious leader in question wants? How is this man's interpretation of God's will more valid than mine or yours? How do you know he isn't manipulating his flock?

That's why you read the Bible.

No, it makes no mention of pi.

The measurments they had were no where near as accurate as they are today. So when the Bible talks about the distance of pi being three it really means the distance of pi is between 2.50 and 3.49 or however accurate we can make their measurments.

*lol

Pi cannot be measured 100% acurately, even today. And the Greeks had already discovered it at that time. Funny how god didn't know about it.

Wait... so, if God came to me and told me to kill my family, it would be right to do that?

Sorry, I doubt that will hold up in court.

If God truly told you to do that, then you would be right to do it. And you should be willing to accept the consequenses.

Your views on human life make me queezy and scared. You would endorse genocide, rape, and murder if God said it was okay?

If God said it was okay, I would. But God condemns rape. There have been a few times when one could say He comanded genocide, but that's debatable. And He condemns murder.

If God truly told you to do that, then you would be right to do it. And you should be willing to accept the consequenses.

Folks, we've got ourselves a ripe sociopath!!! Everybody gather round, it's very rare that they come out in the open like that, this could be educational.

That is uncalled for, don't you think? You are presuming to know (A) what Skaladora is about as a person and (B) the will and mind of God.

Or are you saying that God did not make human beings with free will, but that Satan somehow installed it in us? Or God gave it to us but doesn't want us to use it? Or what?

I don't think so. It was a deliberate exaggeration. I'm sorry that wasn't clear.

And I do think his thinking has been inspired by Satan. Whether he has actively handed it over to Satan is debateable.

No, Ed. At the risk of being glib, what you are describing is being free of thinking.

Well, that's what's usually called free thinking today, at least in all the educational institutions I've been in.

All you tell us about yourself in various threads is that you follow the Bible in absolutely everything and that you would do whatever God told you to, up to and including genocide, if you thought it really was God talking.

I try to follow in absolutely everything. I'm not always successful, though. In fact, I fail more often than not.

I have asked you many times how you could tell if it was really God talking and not some self-serving false leader or a delusion of your own.

And I've told you many times (well, maybe not you, but people on this forum) that it comes to faith. There are things which would support the faith, but it's still faith.

I have asked you what basic principles guide you in deciding which of the many contradictory Bible verses should apply in any given situation.

And again, while it may not have been you, I've said many times, that we are to interpret Scripture with Scripture. There are never contradictions. I challenge you to show me one.

You have never answered those questions. So where, then, is the thinking going on with you?

In my brain, mentally, and hopefully in Christ spiritually and emotionally.

"If" being, again, the key word here. And even if god should happen to be the "author of morality", how do we know which morality he's the author of? There are countless versions floating around this planet right now...

Of Morality. Not morality. It's the same idea as Truth versus truth. Truth (with a capital T) is what is. Truth (with a lowercase t) is your perception of what is. Same idea with morality.

If God told me to do that, I would. But God hasn't told me to do that, and what the Bible says about His nature makes it very highly unlikely that He would.You are one scary crazy person. Not just because you haven't read the Bible, but because you place so much faith in what you want to hear that you ignore reality.

You're sort of like a self-made Manchurian Candidate. I sure hope no one "activates" you.

And you know that - why? Because the bible says so? Ever heard the term "circular argument"?

While the Bible has verses that say that it's infallible, we cannot rely on its own words when it's legitimacy is being questioned.

I am convinced of the Truth of Scripture because its doctrines make more sense than any other system I have encountered. I am convinced of God's existence by nature and I am convinced He cares because I see how all things fit so wonderfully together. I have never seen a contradiction in Scripture (paradoxes, but not contradictions).

Now if Scripture is Truth, how can it be? For it clearly teaches that anything Man does is tainted by sin. Well, the only explanation I have seen that works is that God inspired men to record what He gave them to record. And because of the inspiration, it is not only inerrant, but also infallible.

No, it makes no mention of pi.

The measurments they had were no where near as accurate as they are today. So when the Bible talks about the distance of pi being three it really means the distance of pi is between 2.50 and 3.49 or however accurate we can make their measurments.

Some contradiction here......it makes no mention of pi yet gives it a value

*lol

Pi cannot be measured 100% acurately, even today. And the Greeks had already discovered it at that time. Funny how god didn't know about it.

I didn't say God didn't know about it. I said the records were not precise enough to accurately measure it. God surely knew of it, but it wouldn't help the Hebrews any, so why bother making their measurments precise enough to record it?

Folks, we've got ourselves a ripe sociopath!!! Everybody gather round, it's very rare that they come out in the open like that, this could be educational.

Love you, too.

I have never seen a contradiction in Scripture (paradoxes, but not contradictions).
A paradox IS a contraditiction!

Some contradiction here......it makes no mention of pi yet gives it a value

The Bible never says "Here is pi!"

But people have pointed to a place in I Kings where it can be said that the Bible gives the valus of pi. So, I said "When the Bible speaks of the value of pi" meaning "the place you are referring to in the Bible on this issue of pi"

While the Bible has verses that say that it's infallible, we cannot rely on its own words when it's legitimacy is being questioned.

I am convinced of the Truth of Scripture because its doctrines make more sense than any other system I have encountered. I am convinced of God's existence by nature and I am convinced He cares because I see how all things fit so wonderfully together. I have never seen a contradiction in Scripture (paradoxes, but not contradictions).

Now if Scripture is Truth, how can it be? For it clearly teaches that anything Man does is tainted by sin. Well, the only explanation I have seen that works is that God inspired men to record what He gave them to record. And because of the inspiration, it is not only inerrant, but also infallible.

So, basially you are saying it is infallible because you personally think so? Because me, personally, I've never seen any evidence for it in nature, but I have seen quite a few contradictions to it.
Now, if your own convictions make you misspell several words, that's your personal pleasure. I don't see any reason why it should apply to anyone else, though.

A paradox IS a contraditiction!

paradox - a statement that seems contradictory, unbelievable, or absurd but that may be true in fact

Webster's New World.

The Bible never says "Here is pi!"

But people have pointed to a place in I Kings where it can be said that the Bible gives the valus of pi. So, I said "When the Bible speaks of the value of pi" meaning "the place you are referring to in the Bible on this issue of pi"

Do you believe in any science or maths, or is all your belief taken from the Bible?
I am not wanting to insult you, I am just very curious

Of Morality. Not morality. It's the same idea as Truth versus truth. Truth (with a capital T) is what is. Truth (with a lowercase t) is your perception of what is. Same idea with morality.

Tomatoe, tomatoe. Both truth and morality are abstract concepts, and both are relative.

So, basially you are saying it is infallible because you personally think so? Because me, personally, I've never seen any evidence for it in nature, but I have seen quite a few contradictions to it.
Now, if your own convictions make you misspell several words, that's your personal pleasure. I don't see any reason why it should apply to anyone else, though.

I'm sorry for the incorrect spellings. I know it can be confusing.

And who would be correct? The person who says "The Bible in infallible" or the person who says "The Bible is not infallible?"

We both can't be right. It can be correct that both of our perceptions exist, but they cannot be correct in actuallity. I told you how I became convinced of the truth, just as I could tell you how I became convinced of gravity. Does that make gravity subject to personal opinion?

Tomatoe, tomatoe. Both truth and morality are abstract concepts, and both are relative.

Are they relative? Well, then, you can't criticize the Nazi's: their morality told them to do it.

Do you believe in any science or maths, or is all your belief taken from the Bible?
I am not wanting to insult you, I am just very curious

I hate math, though that's only because my brain isn't wired for it. It's very important to our society and is helping in a lot of fields: medicine, computere technology, etc. I'm glad some people can stomach it, because I can't.

I am very wary of science, because there seems to be too much emphasis on it. The idea that science can solve anything has made it the god of this generation, nearly. But science is very important.

Human beings gifted with the power of reasoning, free will, and freedom of action.

A human being ready to surrender his free will to anything or anyone loses his very humanity.

Even if an hypothetical omniscient and omnipotent God or other superior being would command me to act in a way that I, as a human, found objectionable according to my very own moral values of compassion, understanding, and tolerance, I would not obey. But I would be very surprised at such an event. Because, obviously, if were created by an all-powerful being, that being gave us free our free will. On purpose. Because s/he/it intended us to make good use of it.

Those who surrender their free will to others are nothing but mindless sheep.

Yeah. This is why I hate religion and am a proud agnostic for life. But I'm tolerant so I don't screw up other people's religions.

Thank you for proving my point for me.

seems contradictory /=/ contradictory

Are they relative? Well, then, you can't criticize the Nazi's: their morality told them to do it.

Speaking as a descendant of Nazis, it didn't.
Some of them may indeed have been convinced, the majority however followed the doctrines and eventually the killings because that's what the authorities they believed in told them. Against their own conscience. So, yes, I can and will blame people for having blind faith in anything or anybody.

I'm sorry for the incorrect spellings. I know it can be confusing.

And who would be correct? The person who says "The Bible in infallible" or the person who says "The Bible is not infallible?"

We both can't be right. It can be correct that both of our perceptions exist, but they cannot be correct in actuallity. I told you how I became convinced of the truth, just as I could tell you how I became convinced of gravity. Does that make gravity subject to personal opinion?

Ah, yes. So you're the only one believeing in gravity, while billions throughout history and today never ever experienced it?

seems contradictory /=/ contradictory
Then how about expanding it, paradoxs can be contrdictions.

The burden of proof on those who utter such is to show they they are not contratictions.

A. n. I. Simple uses.

{dag}1. a. A statement or tenet contrary to received opinion or belief, esp. one that is difficult to believe. Obs.
Sometimes used with unfavourable connotation, as being discordant with what is held to be established truth, and hence absurd or fantastic; sometimes with favourable connotation, as a correction of a common error.

b. Rhetoric. A figure of speech consisting of a conclusion or apodosis contrary to what the audience has been led to expect. Obs. rare.

2. a. An apparently absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition, or a strongly counter-intuitive one, which investigation, analysis, or explanation may nevertheless prove to be well-founded or true.
twin paradox: see TWIN n. C. e.

b. A proposition or statement that is (taken to be) actually self-contradictory, absurd, or intrinsically unreasonable.
Some scholars (cf. quot. 1639) have denied statements to be paradoxes when they can be proved after all to be true, or have called them ‘apparent paradoxes’ (cf. quots. 1794, 1876), when they are paradoxes in sense 2a.

c. Logic. More fully logical paradox. An argument, based on (apparently) acceptable premisses and using (apparently) valid reasoning, which leads to a conclusion that is against sense, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory; the conclusion of such an argument. Freq. with a descriptive or eponymous name.
Grelling's, prediction, Russell's paradox: see the first element. paradox of the liar: see LIAR n. d.

3. a. Paradoxical character; paradoxicality.

b. Literary Criticism. The expression of meaning using language that is paradoxical.

4. A composition in prose or verse expounding a paradox. Now rare.

5. A person or thing whose life or behaviour is characterized by paradox; a paradoxical phenomenon or occurrence, spec. one that exhibits some contradiction or conflict with preconceived notions of what is reasonable or possible.
hydrostatic, Olbers' paradox: see the first element.
OED- II Edition (Online)

Speaking as a descendant of Nazis, it didn't.
Some of them may indeed have been convinced, the majority however followed the doctrines and eventually the killings because that's what the authorities they believed in told them. Against their own conscience. So, yes, I can and will blame people for having blind faith in anything or anybody.

That wasn't my point. My point is, how can you say anything bad about the Nazi's morality if morality is relative? You can't, unless there is a Morality beyond that.

Ah, yes. So you're the only one believeing in gravity, while billions throughout history and today never ever experienced it?

Well, I'm not the only one who has experineced Christianity either.

Then how about expanding it, paradoxs can be contrdictions.

The burden of proof on those who utter such is to show they they are not contratictions.

A. n. I. Simple uses.

{dag}1. a. A statement or tenet contrary to received opinion or belief, esp. one that is difficult to believe. Obs.
Sometimes used with unfavourable connotation, as being discordant with what is held to be established truth, and hence absurd or fantastic; sometimes with favourable connotation, as a correction of a common error.

b. Rhetoric. A figure of speech consisting of a conclusion or apodosis contrary to what the audience has been led to expect. Obs. rare.

2. a. An apparently absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition, or a strongly counter-intuitive one, which investigation, analysis, or explanation may nevertheless prove to be well-founded or true.
twin paradox: see TWIN n. C. e.

b. A proposition or statement that is (taken to be) actually self-contradictory, absurd, or intrinsically unreasonable.
Some scholars (cf. quot. 1639) have denied statements to be paradoxes when they can be proved after all to be true, or have called them ‘apparent paradoxes’ (cf. quots. 1794, 1876), when they are paradoxes in sense 2a.

c. Logic. More fully logical paradox. An argument, based on (apparently) acceptable premisses and using (apparently) valid reasoning, which leads to a conclusion that is against sense, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory; the conclusion of such an argument. Freq. with a descriptive or eponymous name.
Grelling's, prediction, Russell's paradox: see the first element. paradox of the liar: see LIAR n. d.

3. a. Paradoxical character; paradoxicality.

b. Literary Criticism. The expression of meaning using language that is paradoxical.

4. A composition in prose or verse expounding a paradox. Now rare.

5. A person or thing whose life or behaviour is characterized by paradox; a paradoxical phenomenon or occurrence, spec. one that exhibits some contradiction or conflict with preconceived notions of what is reasonable or possible.
hydrostatic, Olbers' paradox: see the first element.
OED- II Edition (Online)

Yes yes yes yes. Let's stick to the sense of a paradox being something which seems contradictory, but isn't whether you disagree or not with that definition, let's stick to it for this argument. Then, later, we can argue about what the real definition of paradox is.

That wasn't my point. My point is, how can you say anything bad about the Nazi's morality if morality is relative? You can't, unless there is a Morality beyond that.

Morality is relative. If they had succeeded, or even if I had been born, brought up and taught be them, I would probably firmly believe that they were right to do what they did. And so would you.
I can say that they were wrong because I'm judging them according to a different set of morals. Same as I can say today that forcefully converting the natives of South America is wrong; morality has changed since then.

Well, I'm not the only one who has experineced Christianity either.

You're in a minority however. Gravity is and undeniable experience to all. I did experience Chrisitanity, and I don't believe in it.

Yes yes yes yes. Let's stick to the sense of a paradox being something which seems contradictory, but isn't whether you disagree or not with that definition, let's stick to it for this argument. Then, later, we can argue about what the real definition of paradox is.

*lol
Yep, let's stick with the incorrect definition you gave, so you can make your point. Let's not get distracted by something as irrelevant as correct definitions....

Morality is relative. If they had succeeded, or even if I had been born, brought up and taught be them, I would probably firmly believe that they were right to do what they did. And so would you.
I can say that they were wrong because I'm judging them according to a different set of morals. Same as I can say today that forcefully converting the natives of South America is wrong; morality has changed since then.

Well what's the point of arguing at all, then? Because my moraltiy is different from yours, and morality is relative.

*lol
Yep, let's stick with the incorrect definition you gave, so you can make your point. Let's not get distracted by something as irrelevant as correct definitions....

The definition is not incorrect according to my dictionary. To avoid confusion, I would prefer the use of this defintion.

Well what's the point of arguing at all, then? Because my moraltiy is different from yours, and morality is relative.

You present yours as an absolute. I don't.

You're in a minority however. Gravity is and undeniable experience to all. I did experience Chrisitanity, and I don't believe in it.

Well, according to the Bible, if you left, you either didn't experience Christianity or you'll be back.

You present yours as an absolute. I don't.

And? Now you're appealing to a higher Morality. The Morality that it is not right to demand everyone follow your morality.

Well, according to the Bible, if you left, you either didn't experience Christianity or you'll be back.
Which only makes his point more firmly:

IF we were to assume the Bible is correct, then perhaps it would be as you say. But we'd first have to assume the Bible is correct.

On the other hand, gravity is going to act upon you regardless of whether or not you "believe" in it. You don't have to know that gravity exists to be governed by it. You can know all about gravity but reject the science entirely, and you'll still be subject to gravity.

Well, according to the Bible, if you left, you either didn't experience Christianity or you'll be back.

*lol
See, another point where the bible is dead wrong ;)

And? Now you're appealing to a higher Morality. The Morality that it is not right to demand everyone follow your morality.
Saying that you are incorrect doesn't necessarily equate to a moral judgment.

If you say that 2+3=329, I will tell you that you are wrong. This does not mean you are "morally" wrong, it just means you are incorrect.

If you say that morality is absolute and defined by God, I will tell you that you are wrong, meaning that you are incorrect in your assertion. Whether or not you are morally bad is a whole other subject.

And? Now you're appealing to a higher Morality. The Morality that it is not right to demand everyone follow your morality.

No. But I will argue with your morality to see if it's really absolute. So far, you've presented very little to base your statements on... a single outdated book.

No. But I will argue with your morality to see if it's really absolute. So far, you've presented very little to base your statements on... a single outdated book.
A single book, written by humans, which contains countless passages that we already consider not relevant or accurate for describing modern morality. Hardly a great piece of evidence for God's absolute morality. :P

Which only makes his point more firmly:

IF we were to assume the Bible is correct, then perhaps it would be as you say. But we'd first have to assume the Bible is correct.

On the other hand, gravity is going to act upon you regardless of whether or not you "believe" in it. You don't have to know that gravity exists to be governed by it. You can know all about gravity but reject the science entirely, and you'll still be subject to gravity.

And I could argue that you are governed by the Bible (or more precisely the ideas and Truth contained in the Bible) whether you believe it or not. Just as one could say I'm governed by evolution whether I believe it or not.

Saying that you are incorrect doesn't necessarily equate to a moral judgment.

If you say that 2+3=329, I will tell you that you are wrong. This does not mean you are "morally" wrong, it just means you are incorrect.

If you say that morality is absolute and defined by God, I will tell you that you are wrong, meaning that you are incorrect in your assertion. Whether or not you are morally bad is a whole other subject.

Okay. I can agree with that.

And I could argue that you are governed by the Bible (or more precisely the ideas and Truth contained in the Bible) whether you believe it or not. Just as one could say I'm governed by evolution whether I believe it or not.
You could also say I'm governed by the will of magical leprechauns. But the burden of proof would fall to you, in that case.

I can empirically prove that gravity acts upon you regardless of whether you believe in gravity or not. Can you empirically prove that I am governed by the Bible (whatever that means) regardless of my belief in it?

And I could argue that you are governed by the Bible (or more precisely the ideas and Truth contained in the Bible) whether you believe it or not. Just as one could say I'm governed by evolution whether I believe it or not.

Really? Let's hear the basis of that argument...

Listen guys, I think it's great and all how you're trying to help this kid out, but I'm fairly certain it's a lost cause. I've been arguing on forums for nigh-onto seven years now, and I've seen it all. I've seen religious nutjobs, people who like to dodge the facts for the sake of doing it, blatant trolls, and simple assholes. They're everywhere.

Edwardis would fall under a combination of "religious nutjob" and "people who like to dodge the facts for the sake of doing it" - it joins together to form a new sect, one whose belief is never wrong because he says so, and he says so because he's never wrong, because he's never wrong because he follows the book, and the book is never wrong because the book says it's never wrong, and the book says it's never wrong because - and here's the kicker - God wrote it.

He's a textbook example of a dillusional psychopath and though I'm not a praying man I certainly -hope- that god kicks his ass in some way or another when he dies. Kinda like when a parent disciplines their child for being a smartass and taking everything they say literally and expecting every word that comes out of their mouth to mean something when really god just wanted us to chill out.

Can't say I'm not disappointed in finding yet another one of his kind - yes, there are others - but it happens. Hopefully he won't fuck the world up badly enough to where we can't fix it; I say that because I know he WILL fuck the world up in one way or another because of the way his mind works. Him and those like him are slowly destroying this world and everything we hold dear. The fact that he exists is a slight hint that god has never and will never be involved in our problems, otherwise he would correct this mistake swiftly a la Old Testament.

You could also say I'm governed by the will of magical leprechauns. But the burden of proof would fall to you, in that case.

I can empirically prove that gravity acts upon you regardless of whether you believe in gravity or not. Can you empirically prove that I am governed by the Bible (whatever that means) regardless of my belief in it?

Everything comes down to faith. I didn't say that I could prove it. I said that I could argue it.

Really? Let's hear the basis of that argument...

Faith, see my last post.

Faith, see my last post.

But that's not a stable basis on a statement that affects the world. It's god damned irresponsible to let -your- faith affect the world of others.

Faith, see my last post.

So your whole basis is "something that could be possible but which we cannot know for sure"? A bit wobbly, don't you think?

Everything comes down to faith. I didn't say that I could prove it. I said that I could argue it.
But that's just the thing: you aren't arguing anything if you rely on the faith cop-out. All you're doing is stating your opinion and then running away when asked to present arguments.

If you have arguments to support your assertions, super! Let's hear them! But, if not, kindly don't go around lying that you can "argue" this topic. As I understand it, your God frowns on lying.

But that's not a stable basis on a statement that affects the world. It's god damned irresponsible to let -your- faith affect the world of others.

You have no problem with your faith in whatever God or lack there of influencing others.

So your whole basis is "something that could be possible but which we cannot know for sure"? A bit wobbly, don't you think?

Faith. I know for sure, but I cannot prove it. It's more certain than a hunch or anything like that, but it lacks undeniable proof. There is stuff to support it and it has a basis, but it cannot be proven.

Faith. I know for sure, but I cannot prove it. It's more certain than a hunch or anything like that, but it lacks undeniable proof. There is stuff to support it and it has a basis, but it cannot be proven.
Ok, so what supports your assertion that I am governed by the Bible regardless of my knowledge of it or belief in it?

I just realized that "pimp" is under my name. Can I get rid of that?

I just realized that "pimp" is under my name. Can I get rid of that?

go to the spam board and post about 10,000 more times and it will change it to something equally disgusting.

I just realized that "pimp" is under my name. Can I get rid of that?

Lol why does it bother you so much?

I just realized that "pimp" is under my name. Can I get rid of that?

Nope not till you post more ... it changes based on post counts

But that's just the thing: you aren't arguing anything if you rely on the faith cop-out. All you're doing is stating your opinion and then running away when asked to present arguments.

If you have arguments to support your assertions, super! Let's hear them! But, if not, kindly don't go around lying that you can "argue" this topic. As I understand it, your God frowns on lying.

I didn't lie. I said I could argue it, but not prove it. My argument comes from Scripture and therfore, relies on faith.

I didn't lie. I said I could argue it, but not prove it. My argument comes from Scripture and therfore, relies on faith.
You have not presented any argument so far, other than "I think it is so." Stating your beliefs does not constitute an argument for anything, other than the fact that you possess beliefs.

Ok, so what supports your assertion that I am governed by the Bible regardless of my knowledge of it or belief in it?

I think what he means is you are governed by the entity stated in the bible and based on the rules shared in it …

Hopefully that is what he means because being governed by a group of books seems silly to me.

Ok, so what supports your assertion that I am governed by the Bible regardless of my knowledge of it or belief in it?

That's why I'm not arguing it!!!!!!!!!!

The argument comes from Scripture and so, I think you would not like to hear it.

Nope not till you post more ... it changes based on post counts

That's horrible.

That's why I'm not arguing it!!!!!!!!!!

The argument comes from Scripture and so, I think you would not like to hear it.

What has stopped us before … I have seen bottle argue scripture before. Though that is more gravy babys area of expertise

That's horrible.

Why?

Lol why does it bother you so much?It bothers me, since I believe pimps are pathetic and pimp culture is boring nonsense perpetuated by people with lame senses of humor. It's like if the people running the forum thought it was cute to use "Fart" or "Doo-doo head" as ranks for posters...though, actually, toilet humor is several steps above the whole "pimp and ho" scene.

I think what he means is you are governed by the entity stated in the bible and based on the rules shared in it …

Hopefully that is what he means because being governed by a group of books seems silly to me.

Yes and no. There are ideas in the Bible (the sinfulness of Man and such) that we are proof of, so I guess we're not really governed by it, so much in that sense.

That's why I'm not arguing it!!!!!!!!!!

The argument comes from Scripture and so, I think you would not like to hear it.
I have already stated that I would like to hear any substantive argument for the assertion you presented. If you can present it, great. If not, we're done.

Why?

What is a pimp?

That's why.

It bothers me, since I believe pimps are pathetic and pimp culture is boring nonsense perpetuated by people with lame senses of humor. It's like if the people running the forum thought it was cute to use "Fart" or "Doo-doo head" as ranks for posters...though, actually, toilet humor is several steps above the whole "pimp and ho" scene.

Depends on how seriously you take these things I suppose

What is a pimp?

That's why.

So what?

Depends on how seriously you take these things I suppose
I said it bothered me, that's all. It also bothers me when I see people wearing capri pants. It bothers me when I overhear somebody talking about how great an artist K-Fed is.

Meh. Life's full of little irritations. I don't let such things ruin my day. People do lots of stupid or annoying things, and you kind of have to get used to it if you want to live around other humans.

If somebody asks me, "Are you bothered by this?" or "why would this bother you?", I will answer. Doesn't mean I want to pass a law or throw somebody in jail for bothering me. Doesn't mean I want to make a national case of it.

It bothers me, since I believe pimps are pathetic and pimp culture is boring nonsense perpetuated by people with lame senses of humor. It's like if the people running the forum thought it was cute to use "Fart" or "Doo-doo head" as ranks for posters...though, actually, toilet humor is several steps above the whole "pimp and ho" scene.

Yeah im not saying its good humor …just seems like such a silly thing to protest over … it will move on with more posts …

I have already stated that I would like to hear any substantive argument for the assertion you presented. If you can present it, great. If not, we're done.

If the Bible is correct, God is sovereign. And what does sovereign mean? If the Bible is correct, it means that He has ordained everything that is to happen before He created anything. So, you are governed by God as told to us by Scripture, whether you believe it or not.

That's the short version.

I need some time to prepare the long version, and I need to go to class soon anyway, so I'll be back in about...3 hours?

You have no problem with your faith in whatever God or lack there of influencing others.

It's not my faith in god that I influence others with, it's with my personal beliefs of the world that stem from logic and compassion rather than some old tome written by idiots. I can do something in confidence that I've done it of my own will, not by the will of some higher being, and I would certainly not use such a pitiful excuse as a reason to do whatever I've done. If I've done it, I've done it. I'm not a sheep, I'm not part of a flock, I'm not in need of a shepherd, and I'm not in need of a false sense of purpose.

You've got balls the size of an adult deer to even insinuate that we're the same.

I said it bothered me, that's all. It also bothers me when I see people wearing capri pants. It bothers me when I overhear somebody talking about how great an artist K-Fed is.

Meh. Life's full of little irritations. I don't let such things ruin my day.

Fair enough

Yes and no. There are ideas in the Bible (the sinfulness of Man and such) that we are proof of, so I guess we're not really governed by it, so much in that sense.

Huh? Let me get this straight... men observe their behaviour, decide to call some of it sin, put it in a book and are therefore the living proof of the fact that they are sinful?
You do love your little circles in your head, don't you?

If the Bible is correct, God is sovereign. And what does sovereign mean? If the Bible is correct, it means that He has ordained everything that is to happen before He created anything. So, you are governed by God as told to us by Scripture, whether you believe it or not.

That's the short version.

That's not an argument for anything, that's just circular logic.


I need some time to prepare the long version, and I need to go to class soon anyway, so I'll be back in about...3 hours?
No prob, have fun!

If the Bible is correct, God is sovereign. And what does sovereign mean? If the Bible is correct, it means that He has ordained everything that is to happen before He created anything. So, you are governed by God as told to us by Scripture, whether you believe it or not.

That's the short version.

I need some time to prepare the long version, and I need to go to class soon anyway, so I'll be back in about...3 hours?

So if he ordained everything before it happened how do humans have the scripturally proposed free will?

If the Bible is correct, God is sovereign. And what does sovereign mean? If the Bible is correct, it means that He has ordained everything that is to happen before He created anything. So, you are governed by God as told to us by Scripture, whether you believe it or not.

That's the short version.

I need some time to prepare the long version, and I need to go to class soon anyway, so I'll be back in about...3 hours?

Again, IF.... an "if" is not a basis of an argument, it's merely a scenario.

If the Bible is correct, God is sovereign. And what does sovereign mean? If the Bible is correct, it means that He has ordained everything that is to happen before He created anything. So, you are governed by God as told to us by Scripture, whether you believe it or not.

That's the short version.

I need some time to prepare the long version, and I need to go to class soon anyway, so I'll be back in about...3 hours?

Yet you ignore the blame being put on him. You admit he ordained it all, yet you don't find it odd that he punishes those he ordained to do bad things.

You. Make. No. Sense.

So if he ordained everything before it happened how do humans have the scripturally proposed free will?

We don't. Apparently to have free will we had to eat the apple, which god did not want us to do. He didn't want us to be intelligent. He didn't want us to be able to learn, able to follow, able to decide.

The moral of the story? Act as if you'd never eaten the apple, i.e. be a complete tool with no sense of logic or intelligence, and you'll get back into the garden of eden.

The god in that story is a dick, plain and simple.

We don't. Apparently to have free will we had to eat the apple, which god did not want us to do. He didn't want us to be intelligent. He didn't want us to be able to learn, able to follow, able to decide.

The moral of the story? Act as if you'd never eaten the apple, i.e. be a complete tool with no sense of logic or intelligence, and you'll get back into the garden of eden.

The god in that story is a dick, plain and simple.

Yeah does seem like a rather harsh punishment for curiosity I never got what was wrong with knowledge itself … just what you do with it

We don't. Apparently to have free will we had to eat the apple, which god did not want us to do. He didn't want us to be intelligent. He didn't want us to be able to learn, able to follow, able to decide.

The moral of the story? Act as if you'd never eaten the apple, i.e. be a complete tool with no sense of logic or intelligence, and you'll get back into the garden of eden.

Also, remember to blame women for any time you misbehave. After all, even though you are a grown man, you can't possibly be expected to take responsibility for your own choices. If you fuck up, just blame the evil temptress who led you into sin. It's all her fault.

:D

Also, remember to blame women for any time you misbehave. After all, even though you are a grown man, you can't possibly be expected to take responsibility for your own choices. If you fuck up, just blame the evil temptress who led you into sin. It's all her fault.

:D

Don’t forget the poor snake who was condemned to slithering on the ground and being the enemy of woman … it was the devil that should be punished not the animal :-P

Whenever Ed gets cornered into his own lack of logic, he sidesteps with the "Well, we can never truly understand the will of god" argument - one that he largely ignores until he is proven wrong. Until that moment he's certain of what god wants because of his righteous intelligence and holier-than-thou attitude. He's right no matter what, and when he's not, you can blame it on our lack of understanding the mind of god. Certainly not a case of him just being dillusional or ignorant or closeminded or stubborn, certainly not.

Whenever Ed gets cornered into his own lack of logic, he sidesteps with the "Well, we can never truly understand the will of god" argument - one that he largely ignores until he is proven wrong. Until that moment he's certain of what god wants because of his righteous intelligence and holier-than-thou attitude. He's right no matter what, and when he's not, you can blame it on our lack of understanding the mind of god. Certainly not a case of him just being dillusional or ignorant or closeminded or stubborn, certainly not.

Why do atheists take this argument just as seriously as Christians? Let Christians believe what they want and take the moral high ground if they pick at your own beliefs

Why do atheists take this argument just as seriously as Christians? Let Christians believe what they want and take the moral high ground if they pick at your own beliefs

turn the other cheek?!

Why do atheists take this argument just as seriously as Christians? Let Christians believe what they want and take the moral high ground if they pick at your own beliefs

Us being the minority their opinion on their faith has the distinct tendency to fuck with my life.

If they choose to use their faith to do so I will continue to argue the merits of it.

turn the other cheek?!

Yeah. Fight christianity with christianity kind of

Why do atheists take this argument just as seriously as Christians? Let Christians believe what they want and take the moral high ground if they pick at your own beliefs
If Christians were content to simply hold their beliefs and let me hold mine, then that would be fine by me. Sadly, a great many of them are not content to do this. Instead, they feel the need to impose their beliefs upon my life. This makes it my business.

If they don't want me arguing about their beliefs, all they need to do is stop making their beliefs my problem.

Us being the minority their opinion on their faith has the distinct tendency to fuck with my life.

If they choose to use their faith to do so I will continue to argue the merits of it.

I'll admit it seems to vary from country to country depending on how much clout they wield

I don't understand it. Why do people insist that they should do things regardless of morality because: "God demands it!"

Anyone who would hold that god would "demand" an immoral act be done has no clue as to what god "demands".


Slobodan Milosevic, the architect of the Yugoslav Civil War that killed a million or more people, told all Orthodox Serbs to take up arms with him to kill all non Christians in Yugoslavia.

Did he think god demanded that that happen? How did he come by that information?


Pope Urban II commanded all Christians to go to Jerusalem to "Kill for Jesus", and even launched a Crusade of children!!!

Same question for Urban II.


And even still as I look through these forums I saw someone mention something about one should not question what their Pastor or whatever says, because it is gods will. Do they not realize that this is not what "God" wants, but rather said Pastor manipulating them to do things like this???

(That being said, I am not very religious.....at all...)

The question is "where do morals (ethics) come from?"

If what a person thinks is immoral is NOT what an authority thinks is immoral, then the two parties should try to find out why the other thinks that way, with each coming to their own conclusion as to "what to do".

If either party demands that "they are right" without discussion, then their "closed-ness" shows them to be someone NOT to be trusted or followed.

If Christians were content to simply hold their beliefs and let me hold mine, then that would be fine by me. Sadly, a great many of them are not content to do this. Instead, they feel the need to impose their beliefs upon my life. This makes it my business.

If they don't want me arguing about their beliefs, all they need to do is stop making their beliefs my problem.

And it works the other way round. I'm not arguing that either side is better. One is as bad as the other

If they don't want me arguing about their beliefs, all they need to do is stop making their beliefs my problem.

Can I sig that?

And it works the other way round. I'm not arguing that either side is better. One is as bad as the other

How do atheists/agnostics make their beliefs a problem for religious people? It doesn't infringe upon any of their rights, does it?

Can I sig that?
Heh, of course! I love attention!

Why do atheists take this argument just as seriously as Christians? Let Christians believe what they want and take the moral high ground if they pick at your own beliefs

I would be glad to ignore them and let them be content with what they allow themselves to think, but for the fact that they affect my world every day. If we were in separate nations, I wouldn't care, but we're not- scratch that, I would still care because they affect their government which would in turn affect mine. There are people like Edwardis who believe that Bush is in office because god appointed him. There are people who believe abortion is wrong and those who disagree should be hung. There are those who would prefer us to all bow to the will of their god rather than to logic and intelligence, and there are far too many of them. They taint the world with something that is supposed to be strictly personal.

When just one of these people vote for someone because of their religious beliefs, I am proven right. It has happened, it will happen again.

How do atheists/agnostics make their beliefs a problem for religious people? It doesn't infringe upon any of their rights, does it?

To quote someone on the forum whose name slips my mind at the moment: "Beware those liberals! They'll let you do whatever you want!"

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuChuChuChu
Why do atheists take this argument just as seriously as Christians? Let Christians believe what they want and take the moral high ground if they pick at your own beliefs

If Christians were content to simply hold their beliefs and let me hold mine, then that would be fine by me. Sadly, a great many of them are not content to do this. Instead, they feel the need to impose their beliefs upon my life. This makes it my business.

If they don't want me arguing about their beliefs, all they need to do is stop making their beliefs my problem.

But they DO like to arguing about their beliefs, thus some of them provoke you by giving you something to argue with.

(( The reason they like to argue about their beliefs, of course, is to clarify their own beliefs to themselves, and PERHAPS "enlighten" those that they argue with as to what they believe. ))

You could simply say, "I'm happy you feel that way, could you pass the butter please?"

How do THEY impose their beliefs on you?

It sounds like SUCH a burden to you. Why does it weigh on you so heavily?

And it works the other way round. I'm not arguing that either side is better. One is as bad as the other
Forgive me, but it does not work the other way around. Atheists and agnostics are not in any way attempting to force atheism or agnosticism on religious individuals. SECULARISM is different from atheism/agnosticism, remember, and secularism is a founding principle of my country. It is not "atheist" or "agnostic" to support secularism; it is simply American.

How do atheists/agnostics make their beliefs a problem for religious people? It doesn't infringe upon any of their rights, does it?

Thanks for pointing out where I got lead away from my original reason for posting. My main point was that some Christians can be completely idiotic towards atheists/agnostics, but it can work in reverse too. If someone doesnt want to argue their faith (because quite frankly it cant be done) then let them instead of complaining that they're dodging the questions. I dont mean this to refer to you by the by

But they DO like to arguing about their beliefs, thus some of them provoke you by giving you something to argue with.

(( The reason they like to argue about their beliefs, of course, is to clarify their own beliefs to themselves, and PERHAPS "enlighten" those that they argue with as to what they believe. ))

You could simply say, "I'm happy you feel that way, could you pass the butter please?"

How do THEY impose their beliefs on you?

It sounds like SUCH a burden to you. Why does it weigh on you so heavily?

It's due to their believes that I couldn't have an abortion here if I needed one.
It's due to their believes that I constantly have to fight ridiculous censorship of movies, books, etc.
It's due to their believes on marriage and family that I had to go through the hell that was my childhood.
It's due to their believes that I see friends of mine discriminated day after day.

Do you want me to go on?

Forgive me, but it does not work the other way around. Atheists and agnostics are not in any way attempting to force atheism or agnosticism on religious individuals. SECULARISM is different from atheism/agnosticism, remember, and secularism is a founding principle of my country. It is not "atheist" or "agnostic" to support secularism; it is simply American.

And I support that American right. What I dont support is people trying to pick away at a persons religion because it seems idiotic to themselves.

Thanks for pointing out where I got lead away from my original reason for posting. My main point was that some Christians can be completely idiotic towards atheists/agnostics, but it can work in reverse too. If someone doesnt want to argue their faith (because quite frankly it cant be done) then let them instead of complaining that they're dodging the questions. I dont mean this to refer to you by the by

It wouldn't be applicable anyway, since I have no faith, but am always willing to argue for it. :D

But they DO like to arguing about their beliefs, thus some of them provoke you by giving you something to argue with.

(( The reason they like to argue about their beliefs, of course, is to clarify their own beliefs to themselves, and PERHAPS "enlighten" those that they argue with as to what they believe. ))

You could simply say, "I'm happy you feel that way, could you pass the butter please?"

How do THEY impose their beliefs on you?

It sounds like SUCH a burden to you. Why does it weigh on you so heavily?

The arguement is not the burden ... the effect of their faith on my real life is

But they DO like to arguing about their beliefs, thus some of them provoke you by giving you something to argue with.

(( The reason they like to argue about their beliefs, of course, is to clarify their own beliefs to themselves, and PERHAPS "enlighten" those that they argue with as to what they believe. ))

You could simply say, "I'm happy you feel that way, could you pass the butter please?"

You're right, I could say that. Or I could talk with them. I choose to do the former sometimes, and the latter other times.


How do THEY impose their beliefs on you?

I am forced to observe religious holidays because they have been made into federal holidays. I also am forced to observe the Christian sabbath day because of blue laws that still exist in my area. My country's currency has been stamped with religious graffiti. In school, I was compelled to recite a pledge stating that my country is "under God."

I am not permitted to marry a person of the same gender because such a union is opposed by religious factions in my country. I am not permitted to claim full ownership of my own body because my doing so is opposed by religious factions in my country. I am not permitted to choose certain forms of medical care because my doing so is opposed by religious factions in my country.

I am rountinely informed, by fellow citizens and leaders alike, that my country is a Christian nation, and that "our" values are religious in nature. I am routinely informed, by fellow citizens and leaders alike, that being godless automatically makes me immoral or without values.

I am constantly bombarded by whining about how the religious are "oppressed" when Macy's employees say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas." My government rushes to pass laws that violate individual privacy and medical rights in order to impose theocratic rules on private citizens (Terry Schiavo, anybody?), even though they can't be bothered to show this same speed and efficiency when confronted with real crises.

Would you like me to keep going?


It sounds like SUCH a burden to you. Why does it weigh on you so heavily?
It is a burden to be a member of an oppressed class. But hey, I'm also non-hetero, non-male, and non-rich...adding in the non-religious thing is like a drop in the ocean. :D

It wouldn't be applicable anyway, since I have no faith, but am always willing to argue for it. :D

Same here. Devils Advocate is fun :D

But they DO like to arguing about their beliefs, thus some of them provoke you by giving you something to argue with.

(( The reason they like to argue about their beliefs, of course, is to clarify their own beliefs to themselves, and PERHAPS "enlighten" those that they argue with as to what they believe. ))

You could simply say, "I'm happy you feel that way, could you pass the butter please?"

How do THEY impose their beliefs on you?

It sounds like SUCH a burden to you. Why does it weigh on you so heavily?

Because I'm -not- happy they feel that way. I'm -not- happy that legislation is being passed on the basis of religion. I'm -not- happy that people like Fred Phelps and his dumbass flock are allowed to vote.

I am forced to observe religious holidays because they have been made into federal holidays.

There would have been holidays in effect anyway. Its just unlucky for you that they were based around Christianity for historical reasons. You aren't being forced to observe them. I'm sure on those days you arent forced to pray or anything of that sort. Just think of them like Bank Holidays

I would be glad to ignore them and let them be content with what they allow themselves to think, but for the fact that they affect my world every day.

So,.. it's YOUR world and people who believe differently than you do "taint" YOUR world, and should be suppressed?


If we were in separate nations, I wouldn't care, but we're not- scratch that, I would still care because they affect their government which would in turn affect mine. There are people like Edwardis who believe that Bush is in office because god appointed him. There are people who believe abortion is wrong and those who disagree should be hung. There are those who would prefer us to all bow to the will of their god rather than to logic and intelligence, and there are far too many of them. They taint the world with something that is supposed to be strictly personal.

The POINT of "being in the world" is to learn from it, and one thing to learn is how best to deal with your fellow creatures.

The question is then, how would you "deal" with othr people who don't believe as you do?


When just one of these people vote for someone because of their religious beliefs, I am proven right. It has happened, it will happen again.

Your "religious" beliefs, which I'm sure you'll deny having, dictate your decision making process, just like everyone else.

Since that is a ubiquitous human characteristic, you can't very well condemn others for using the same facility a yourself.

Now, since you most likely don't like my giving you "religious" beliefs, let's call them something else instead, as arguing about whether you do or don't have them is not the issue. Let's call them "convictions".

Your convictions inform you in making your decisions.

Other's convictions inform them in making their decisions.

The question then becomes, how do people come to decide on how they should act?

What makes a decision "wrong", a why?

If you're simply arguing that "religious" people have no right to make decisions based on their religion, then you're also taking away your own right to make decisions based on your "religion".

Would you have others strip you of your "right" to make decisions for yourself, based on what YOU value?

And I support that American right. What I dont support is people trying to pick away at a persons religion because it seems idiotic to themselves.
Do you support people trying to pick away at a person's racist beliefs because these beliefs seem idiotic? Do you support people trying to pick away at a person's belief in a Flat Earth?

I support people picking away at each other's ideas all the damn time. I come here specifically because I want people to pick at my ideas and beliefs, because this helps me to understand myself and my thoughts even better. If there are people who don't want their beliefs challenged, then I suggest those people consider a nice quiet hermitage somewhere in the mountains. They're clearly not prepared to be full members of human society.

There would have been holidays in effect anyway. Its just unlucky for you that they were based around Christianity for historical reasons. You aren't being forced to observe them. I'm sure on those days you arent forced to pray or anything of that sort. Just think of them like Bank Holidays
Heh, as if it were possible to live in America and not observe Christmas! You'd have to hide under a rock at the bottom of the ocean from the end of November until after the New Year!

Do you support people trying to pick away at a person's racist beliefs because these beliefs seem idiotic? Do you support people trying to pick away at a person's belief in a Flat Earth?

I support people picking away at each other's ideas all the damn time. I come here specifically because I want people to pick at my ideas and beliefs, because this helps me to understand myself and my thoughts even better. If there are people who don't want their beliefs challenged, then I suggest those people consider a nice quiet hermitage somewhere in the mountains. They're clearly not prepared to be full members of human society.

You (just assuming it was you. correct me if i'm wrong) picked at them sure and then you decided to worry them like a dog with a sheep even when they had admitted they didnt have evidence to back up their faith. If it gets to that point in an argument it might as well be left alone.

(Edit: Make that Szanth not you)

Heh, as if it were possible to live in America and not observe Christmas! You'd have to hide under a rock at the bottom of the ocean from the end of November until after the New Year!

What do you consider "observing"? Just to check we're on the same wavelength

Quote:
Originally Posted by Insignificantia
But they DO like to arguing about their beliefs, thus some of them provoke you by giving you something to argue with.

(( The reason they like to argue about their beliefs, of course, is to clarify their own beliefs to themselves, and PERHAPS "enlighten" those that they argue with as to what they believe. ))

You could simply say, "I'm happy you feel that way, could you pass the butter please?"

How do THEY impose their beliefs on you?

It sounds like SUCH a burden to you. Why does it weigh on you so heavily?

Because I'm -not- happy they feel that way. I'm -not- happy that legislation is being passed on the basis of religion. I'm -not- happy that people like Fred Phelps and his dumbass flock are allowed to vote.

How much does your vote count? The answer is "one vote worth".

Just like all other people (in this country at least [US]).

Would you actually take away the vote of those you disagree with?

The job of a voter (citizen) who is interested in promoting an agenda, is to convince other voters that they should vote as they do, not to take away the votes of those with whom they disagree.

If your "NOT HAPPY" about something, change it, and your ONE AND ONLY tool to accomplish that is by aggregating votes that favor your causes.

You also can't tell people how to feel,.. and would you feel comfortable with someone who tried to tell you how you should feel?


I understand your frustration. But see the fact that their are people who feel differently about things as an opportunity to show how "righteous" your "more correct" ideas are, and then go prove it!

Heh, as if it were possible to live in America and not observe Christmas! You'd have to hide under a rock at the bottom of the ocean from the end of November until after the New Year!

What do you mean by "observe"?

If you don't enjoy christmas, don't partake of the festivities.

Would you go into a "primitive" culture and "make fun" of their customs and social system?

If you would, then you'd be terribly un-PC!

If you wouldn't, then why would you do that to OUR "primitive" culture?

Or is it just "the trendy thing to do" to bash western civilization in general and christianity in particular?

So,.. it's YOUR world and people who believe differently than you do "taint" YOUR world, and should be suppressed?



The POINT of "being in the world" is to learn from it, and one thing to learn is how best to deal with your fellow creatures.

The question is then, how would you "deal" with othr people who don't believe as you do?



Your "religious" beliefs, which I'm sure you'll deny having, dictate your decision making process, just like everyone else.

Since that is a ubiquitous human characteristic, you can't very well condemn others for using the same facility a yourself.

Now, since you most likely don't like my giving you "religious" beliefs, let's call them something else instead, as arguing about whether you do or don't have them is not the issue. Let's call them "convictions".

Your convictions inform you in making your decisions.

Other's convictions inform them in making their decisions.

The question then becomes, how do people come to decide on how they should act?

What makes a decision "wrong", a why?

If you're simply arguing that "religious" people have no right to make decisions based on their religion, then you're also taking away your own right to make decisions based on your "religion".

Would you have others strip you of your "right" to make decisions for yourself, based on what YOU value?

Right. I'm fine with them having their own values, their own lives, their own beliefs - as long as they don't interfere with logic and government. Who decides what's moral and what's not? Common decency, the constitution (in a governmental sense), etc. I'm not going to say there's only one way of thinking and all others should be thrown out - far from it - I just think that if your belief is based on something that doesn't make sense and relies on myth, then you shouldn't be able to have a say in my government of logic and reason.

I have a religion, but I don't make decisions based on it. Not on the scale of any other Christian/Muslim/Jewish person, I don't. I advocate choice, not because god told me to, but because I believe it to be illogical to refuse someone's right to choose what to do with their body. On top of that, I advocate the death penalty because of numerous economical and political reasons, none of which are rooted in religion.

Your argument has no ground to stand on.

To observe:

"to regard with attention, esp. so as to see or learn something."

"to watch, view, or note for a scientific, official, or other special purpose: to observe an eclipse."

"to keep or maintain in one's action, conduct, etc.: You must observe quiet."

"to obey, comply with, or conform to: to observe laws."

"to show regard for by some appropriate procedure, ceremony, etc.: to observe Palm Sunday."

"to keep or celebrate."

"to adhere to or abide by."

All of the above apply.

How much does your vote count? The answer is "one vote worth".

Just like all other people (in this country at least [US]).

Would you actually take away the vote of those you disagree with?

The job of a voter (citizen) who is interested in promoting an agenda, is to convince other voters that they should vote as they do, not to take away the votes of those with whom they disagree.

If your "NOT HAPPY" about something, change it, and your ONE AND ONLY tool to accomplish that is by aggregating votes that favor your causes.

You also can't tell people how to feel,.. and would you feel comfortable with someone who tried to tell you how you should feel?


I understand your frustration. But see the fact that their are people who feel differently about things as an opportunity to show how "righteous" your "more correct" ideas are, and then go prove it!

That's part of why I dislike the situation so much. I -can't- disprove it, because there's -nothing- to disprove! Their basis of thinking comes from an ancient book that dictates everything but which direction to piss in. Again, I say that if you can back your reasons up with logic and reason then I wholeheartedly agree that you should have a place in our government, be it through voting or politics. Otherwise, stay out. For the sake of everyone.

"to regard with attention, esp. so as to see or learn something."

You dont want to learn something from religious holidays so I doubt it will subconciously happen

"to watch, view, or note for a scientific, official, or other special purpose: to observe an eclipse."

What does this have to do with religious holidays in particular?

"to keep or maintain in one's action, conduct, etc.: You must observe quiet."

Why this definition in this context?

"to obey, comply with, or conform to: to observe laws."

Something which would have been the case if it were a Bank Holiday instead of Christmas, etc

"to show regard for by some appropriate procedure, ceremony, etc.: to observe Palm Sunday."

No law says you have to take part in religious services, or even take part in Christmas in a religious way.

"to keep or celebrate."

You obviously dont have to "celebrate" it

"to adhere to or abide by."

Only so far as in it is a public holiday. Not in a religious manner

I would be glad to ignore them and let them be content with what they allow themselves to think, but for the fact that they affect my world every day. If we were in separate nations, I wouldn't care, but we're not- scratch that, I would still care because they affect their government which would in turn affect mine. There are people like Edwardis who believe that Bush is in office because god appointed him. There are people who believe abortion is wrong and those who disagree should be hung. There are those who would prefer us to all bow to the will of their god rather than to logic and intelligence, and there are far too many of them. They taint the world with something that is supposed to be strictly personal.

When just one of these people vote for someone because of their religious beliefs, I am proven right. It has happened, it will happen again.

I agree that someone should not vote to impose their religion upon others, but this is not the same thing as voting because of religious beliefs. Religion, like any philosophical viewpoint, is a part of someone and is going to affect their thinking on every subject. As long as there are people who have religious beliefs (and that doesn't seem to be going anywhere), government will be affected by those beliefs, just as it is affected by those who consider themselves feminists, humanists, nihilists, Machiavellian, etc., etc., etc. The problem comes in when a given law or decision is based in nothing but religion - nothing but "God said so." That *is* a problem, and many of us who are religious think it should be prevented.

I agree that someone should not vote to impose their religion upon others, but this is not the same thing as voting because of religious beliefs. Religion, like any philosophical viewpoint, is a part of someone and is going to affect their thinking on every subject. As long as there are people who have religious beliefs (and that doesn't seem to be going anywhere), government will be affected by those beliefs, just as it is affected by those who consider themselves feminists, humanists, nihilists, Machiavellian, etc., etc., etc. The problem comes in when a given law or decision is based in nothing but religion - nothing but "God said so." That *is* a problem, and many of us who are religious think it should be prevented.

Well put. I tried to be careful not to catch moderate and sensible religious people in the crossfire of my words, but I might have gone too far - I apologize if I had.

We don't. Apparently to have free will we had to eat the apple, which god did not want us to do. He didn't want us to be intelligent. He didn't want us to be able to learn, able to follow, able to decide.

The moral of the story? Act as if you'd never eaten the apple, i.e. be a complete tool with no sense of logic or intelligence, and you'll get back into the garden of eden.

The god in that story is a dick, plain and simple.

Of course, another way of looking at the story is that it was an ancient people's way of trying to explain the differences between them and the animals. It can be seen much like adults looking at children and wishing for the "good old days" when they had no responsibilty or cares. Human beings are self-aware. We understand the consequences of our actions, and this places responsibilities upon us that we couldn't have otherwise. While I disagree with the viewpoint, I could see someone wishing to be rid of that responsibility, to be just as any animal that doesn't understand and thus thinking that the awareness and responsibility must be a "bad" thing that was unintended.


Don’t forget the poor snake who was condemned to slithering on the ground and being the enemy of woman … it was the devil that should be punished not the animal :-P

Why? In the story, it is the serpent who tempts, not the "devil" who didn't enter the theology until much later and then got superimposed over the serpent. =)

Well put. I tried to be careful not to catch moderate and sensible religious people in the crossfire of my words, but I might have gone too far - I apologize if I had.

I thought that's what you were getting at, but it also seemed that others were taking it to be a bit broader. Glad to see we basically agree. =)

Of course, another way of looking at the story is that it was an ancient people's way of trying to explain the differences between them and the animals. It can be seen much like adults looking at children and wishing for the "good old days" when they had no responsibilty or cares. Human beings are self-aware. We understand the consequences of our actions, and this places responsibilities upon us that we couldn't have otherwise. While I disagree with the viewpoint, I could see someone wishing to be rid of that responsibility, to be just as any animal that doesn't understand and thus thinking that the awareness and responsibility must be a "bad" thing that was unintended.

The story changes completely if you take it metaphorically, though in the metaphorical sense I can't see what would match up with god warning us about the apple, and then casting us out of eden. Further than that, it continues with Adam and Eve's children and Cain kills his brother and beyond that it details further to a point.

Seems like a very elongated metaphor... a very bad metaphor, to say the least.

I don't think so. It was a deliberate exaggeration. I'm sorry that wasn't clear.

And I do think his thinking has been inspired by Satan. Whether he has actively handed it over to Satan is debateable.

You're sounding arrogant again, Ed.

You're sounding arrogant again, Ed.

When is he not?


That's not a flame, that's a serious question. I'm geniuinely interested to find a post of his that hasn't screamed arrogance.

Well, that's what's usually called free thinking today, at least in all the educational institutions I've been in.



I try to follow in absolutely everything. I'm not always successful, though. In fact, I fail more often than not.



And I've told you many times (well, maybe not you, but people on this forum) that it comes to faith. There are things which would support the faith, but it's still faith.



And again, while it may not have been you, I've said many times, that we are to interpret Scripture with Scripture. There are never contradictions. I challenge you to show me one.



In my brain, mentally, and hopefully in Christ spiritually and emotionally.

"interpret Scripture with Scripture"? Textbook circular logic. This amounts to a non-answer because it tells us nothing. The fact seems to be that you have no line that you will not cross. You freely admit that you would commit any act of violence, any atrocity or abuse, if you thought God really wanted you to. The fact that you keep repeating that IF implies that you think it is possible that God may want you to do it someday, and you stand ready to hop into action. Not good, Ed. It makes people like me give you the hairy eyeball and think it's not safe to let you roam around our neighborhoods or near where our children play.

While the Bible has verses that say that it's infallible, we cannot rely on its own words when it's legitimacy is being questioned.

I am convinced of the Truth of Scripture because its doctrines make more sense than any other system I have encountered. I am convinced of God's existence by nature and I am convinced He cares because I see how all things fit so wonderfully together. I have never seen a contradiction in Scripture (paradoxes, but not contradictions).

Now if Scripture is Truth, how can it be? For it clearly teaches that anything Man does is tainted by sin. Well, the only explanation I have seen that works is that God inspired men to record what He gave them to record. And because of the inspiration, it is not only inerrant, but also infallible.

Please show us the proof that this supposed inspiration took place. Without such proof, all you are offering us is an assumption based on your own speculation. And since you are a human being and just as "sinful" and fallible as any other human being, why should we believe you any more than we believe the authors of your scriptures?

The story changes completely if you take it metaphorically, though in the metaphorical sense I can't see what would match up with god warning us about the apple, and then casting us out of eden. Further than that, it continues with Adam and Eve's children and Cain kills his brother and beyond that it details further to a point.

Seems like a very elongated metaphor... a very bad metaphor, to say the least.

You have to understand that I don't think the story came from God. I think it came from a tribal people trying to figure out the world. "Eden" is existence without responsibility - an animal existence. "Knowledge of good and evil", knowledge of the results of our actions - that which separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom (which, of course, they would have seen as separating us from the animals, as they never would have classified humans as such) places burdens upon us that remove us from that animal existence - removing us from Eden. If those who began the story thought of that separation as a bad thing - as a burden rather than as a gift - it would make sense that they would see it as something God did not intend, and thus as something God would have warned against. Personally, I see knowledge as a gift, so the story doesn't have much of a meaning to me as much more than any other version of a Creation story.

The Cain and Abel story, I believe, is a metaphor related to agrarian vs. nomadic societies - and the fact that agrarian "civilized" societies tended to try and wipe out the nomadic peoples. How many children read that story and can't figure out why God wouldn't take Cain's sacrifice when it was clearly the fruit of his labors? The answer is clear if you think about it in this way. When the story began to be passed down, the nomadic herders were "us" (as in, the writers of the story) and the agrarian society was "them". God loved "us" and not "them," was with "us" and not "them." Of course, we ended up as an agrarian society ourselves, so the story doesn't make much sense to people without looking at it in that context.

And I could argue that you are governed by the Bible (or more precisely the ideas and Truth contained in the Bible) whether you believe it or not. Just as one could say I'm governed by evolution whether I believe it or not.

You can argue that, and I believe you have in this forum. But it means nothing.

Let's say you disbelieve in science and reject my arguments that you are governed by gravity whether you believe in it or not. All I have to do is push you off a roof to prove my point.

Now let's say I disbelieve in the Bible and reject your argument that I am governed by it whether I believe in it or not. How will you prove your point? You cannot. There is nothing I do that can only be explained as direct control by the contents of the Bible, and any argument you make otherwise will be nothing but your say-so, without proof.

Thus, your claim that the Bible rules all is nothing more than that -- your claim.

You have to understand that I don't think the story came from God. I think it came from a tribal people trying to figure out the world. "Eden" is existence without responsibility - an animal existence. "Knowledge of good and evil", knowledge of the results of our actions - that which separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom (which, of course, they would have seen as separating us from the animals, as they never would have classified humans as such) places burdens upon us that remove us from that animal existence - removing us from Eden. If those who began the story thought of that separation as a bad thing - as a burden rather than as a gift - it would make sense that they would see it as something God did not intend, and thus as something God would have warned against. Personally, I see knowledge as a gift, so the story doesn't have much of a meaning to me as much more than any other version of a Creation story.

The Cain and Abel story, I believe, is a metaphor related to agrarian vs. nomadic societies - and the fact that agrarian "civilized" societies tended to try and wipe out the nomadic peoples. How many children read that story and can't figure out why God wouldn't take Cain's sacrifice when it was clearly the fruit of his labors? The answer is clear if you think about it in this way. When the story began to be passed down, the nomadic herders were "us" (as in, the writers of the story) and the agrarian society was "them". God loved "us" and not "them," was with "us" and not "them." Of course, we ended up as an agrarian society ourselves, so the story doesn't make much sense to people without looking at it in that context.

Ah, I get it now. Yeah it makes sense if you can take the book to not be from god.

Listen guys, I think it's great and all how you're trying to help this kid out, but I'm fairly certain it's a lost cause. I've been arguing on forums for nigh-onto seven years now, and I've seen it all. I've seen religious nutjobs, people who like to dodge the facts for the sake of doing it, blatant trolls, and simple assholes. They're everywhere.


I, for one, am not trying to convince Edwardis of anything. I argue with people like him only in public forums and public places, in the hope that others will see it and learn to recognize such personalities in places where they can really be dangerous, such as politics.

At least he's a polite extremist.

Please show us the proof that this supposed inspiration took place. Without such proof, all you are offering us is an assumption based on your own speculation. And since you are a human being and just as "sinful" and fallible as any other human being, why should we believe you any more than we believe the authors of your scriptures?

As much as I do believe many of the authors of Scripture (Biblical or otherwise) were inspired by God, I have to admit that the claim that inspiration makes you infallible makes me giggle. I just don't think it happens.


Ah, I get it now. Yeah it makes sense if you can take the book to not be from god.

Don't get me wrong. It isn't that I think none of Scripture came from God. It is more that I think that human beings are fallible - inspired or not. I look at the Bible in much the same way that I would look at a preacher/priest/iman/etc. They are teachers, but they are no less fallible than the rest of us. What they say has to be examined against a person's other knowledge, as well as that person's own relationship with God (assuming, of course, that they have one. =)

What do you consider "observing"? Just to check we're on the same wavelength

Not being able to work and losing a day's wage (for hourly paid workers) because other people want to go to church and have parties on that day. Not being able to conduct my business because public offices and stores are shut down. Things like that.

I don't have to put my life on hold for Jewish and Muslim holidays. Why should I -- and the Jews and the Muslims -- have to put our lives on hold for a Christian holiday?

Not being able to work and losing a day's wage (for hourly paid workers) because other people want to go to church and have parties on that day. Not being able to conduct my business because public offices and stores are shut down. Things like that.

I don't have to put my life on hold for Jewish and Muslim holidays. Why should I -- and the Jews and the Muslims -- have to put our lives on hold for a Christian holiday?

There are other holidays such as Bank Holidays, etc when you don't work but I dont see you complaining about them. Its just that the holidays were decided at a time when Christianity held much more sway.

When is he not?


That's not a flame, that's a serious question. I'm geniuinely interested to find a post of his that hasn't screamed arrogance.

Every now and then, he seems to hear his own tone and tries to ratchet it down. As an arrogant person, I understand that one never stops being arrogant. One can only control how much of one's arrogance one displays in any given statement. Ed's self-righteousness is outrageously arrogant, but of all the unjustified privileges he seems to think his religion gives him, acting like a bitch to others does not seem to be one of them. Not all the time, at least.

So if he ordained everything before it happened how do humans have the scripturally proposed free will?

You do not have free will. I don't have free will. No one has free will. No mere human anyway. Our wills (what we desire) are bound to sin, and are therefore anything but free. We have free agency, a free choice, but we will always choose the wrong (not necessarily the most wrong) because our will is bound to sin.

By the way Muryavets, only 2 of the 11 federal endorsed holidays are christian

By the way Muryavets, only 2 of the 11 federal endorsed holidays are christian

That's two too many.

You do not have free will. I don't have free will. No one has free will. No mere human anyway. Our wills (what we desire) are bound to sin, and are therefore anything but free. We have free agency, a free choice, but we will always choose the wrong (not necessarily the most wrong) because our will is bound to sin.

I heard somewhere that when Jesus died for us that whole 'original sin' bullshit was wiped away.

That's two too many.

Want rid of Thanksgiving then?

You're sounding arrogant again, Ed.

Of course I sound arrogant. I'll always sound arrogant. It probably has to do with the fact that I'm a sinner, just like you, and one of my vices is arrogance. God forgive me, and I ask that you would forgive me, but I am arrogant. I try not to be, but I am Man and I fail. More often I fail.

"interpret Scripture with Scripture"? Textbook circular logic. This amounts to a non-answer because it tells us nothing. The fact seems to be that you have no line that you will not cross. You freely admit that you would commit any act of violence, any atrocity or abuse, if you thought God really wanted you to. The fact that you keep repeating that IF implies that you think it is possible that God may want you to do it someday, and you stand ready to hop into action. Not good, Ed. It makes people like me give you the hairy eyeball and think it's not safe to let you roam around our neighborhoods or near where our children play.

If implies a hypothetical situation. I never said God would do that. In fact, after thinking about it, I said He would be unable to do that. But should He do that, I would be required to respond positively. But He won't. So you are in no danger of me murdering you.

You do not have free will. I don't have free will. No one has free will. No mere human anyway. Our wills (what we desire) are bound to sin, and are therefore anything but free. We have free agency, a free choice, but we will always choose the wrong (not necessarily the most wrong) because our will is bound to sin.

What a depressing outlook on life ... and people wonder how atheists can be happy not believing in a god.

I heard somewhere that when Jesus died for us that whole 'original sin' bullshit was wiped away.

Christ death made the offer of salvation to all, but only those who repent and proclaim Him as their personal Lord and Savior will be saved from both their sinful nature (original sin) and their particular sins (the least of which is damning).

What a depressing outlook on life ... and people wonder how atheists can be happy not believing in a god.

It can be liberating too if you think about it. No matter how bad a person I am at least its not my fault really :D

What a depressing outlook on life ... and people wonder how atheists can be happy not believing in a god.

I don't find it depressing. It means a good God is in charge. And what could be better than that?

Atheist, I think, can be very happy. I think their happiness is misplaced, but they can be very happy.

It can be liberating too if you think about it. No matter how bad a person I am at least its not my fault really :D

Oh, yes it is your fault. You chose to do what you did. And you liked it. It is very much your fault.

That's two too many.

To be fair, Christmas grew out of a holiday that was not at all Christian. =)

There are some things that I know were based in religion that have become secularized enough and a big enough part of our society in general that removing them would be a bit like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Others, (like, for instance, the addition of "under God" to the pledge or currency) were carried out *specifically* to discriminate against those who hold different views and thus, I believe, should be reversed.

It can be liberating too if you think about it. No matter how bad a person I am at least its not my fault really :D
Yes ... but that sort of thinking leads to a lack of personal responsibility ... you are responsible for what you do and the consequences of thoes actions


I just dont see how some people can think EVERY action is moraly sinfull ... I can see some but not all

Want rid of Thanksgiving then?

Moreso than I do Christmas.

Oh, yesit is you fault. You chose to do what you did. And you liked it. It is very much your fault.

Make up your mind Ed. You can't choose if you don't have free will. If you are, by your very nature, bad, then you don't make a choice to be so. If you are not, and you do have a choice, then everything isn't preordained - it's up to you to decide your path.

Oh, yesit is you fault. You chose to do what you did. And you liked it. It is very much your fault.

Didnt you just say that no matter what I do i'm always gonna choose the wrong path?

Moreso than I do Christmas.

And all the other holidays?

There are other holidays such as Bank Holidays, etc when you don't work but I dont see you complaining about them. Its just that the holidays were decided at a time when Christianity held much more sway.

We don't have Bank Holidays in the US. And yes, now that you mention it, I do complain about being shut down for many secular and national holidays as well.

I'm not a total stick in the mud. There are a few days that I appreciate being given a break, such as Labor Day and Independence Day. But not always. I didn't always get those days, either. In many of my jobs (in retail), I've had to work to serve all those holiday shoppers. In other jobs, the office shut down and I could not work and didn't get paid for it, either (because the job wasn't good enough to give me paid holidays). I had no choice in the matter.

Yet I got no breaks or compensatory time off for my own holidays, did I? No, far from it. If I wanted to take a day off to celebrate Yule a week before Christmas, I was told I couldn't have that day because of all the work that had to be finished before the long Christmas break. In other words, fuck me and my religion.

My Jewish co-workers got to take their holidays off, but they were also forced to take the Christian holidays off, and if their jobs sucked as bad as mine, they got to lose money off two paychecks, for both religions.

So, by making religious holidays into national holidays, non-Christians are being directly impacted by a religion they do not practice, often in ways that hurt or seriously inconvenience them. I don't know how this plays in the UK, but the US is supposed to have separation of church and state. I do not think any religious holidays should be observed as national holidays in the US. All workers should be permitted to take the same number of days off for their own religious holidays on their own schedules, under the same rules as sick days and personal days.

Oh, yesit is you fault. You chose to do what you did. And you liked it. It is very much your fault.

But sense every action is sinfull and a damnable offense what is the difference? so you have one more sin on your head

Its not like by your apparent viewpoint that you would have sined any more making another choice

Right. I'm fine with them having their own values, their own lives, their own beliefs - as long as they don't interfere with logic and government. Who decides what's moral and what's not? Common decency, the constitution (in a governmental sense), etc. I'm not going to say there's only one way of thinking and all others should be thrown out - far from it - I just think that if your belief is based on something that doesn't make sense and relies on myth, then you shouldn't be able to have a say in my government of logic and reason.

If you were the arbiter of what makes "sense" and what constitutes (apparently unuseful) "myth", then YOUR government (of logic and reason) could take the vote away from whomever it likes.

But OUR government has decided that people have free will to make up their own minds based on whatever they wish, and that any one vote is just as powerful as any other vote.


I have a religion, but I don't make decisions based on it.

And this is where we fundamentally disagree. You DO make decisions based on your religion, you just don't call what you base your decisions on "RELIGION".

Those who DO call what they base their decisions on "religion" are your "enemies" because of what you believe "religion" is.

You're not "at war" with religion as a basis of decision making, you're at war with a particular FORM and CONTENT of religion, which I would guess would be your idea of what "christianity" is, as that's the popular thing to be "against" these days.


Not on the scale of any other Christian/Muslim/Jewish person, I don't. I advocate choice, not because god told me to, but because I believe it to be illogical to refuse someone's right to choose what to do with their body.

You believe in "choice" because you believe that a woman's body, including her in-body offspring, are a single entity who's more operative brain (the mother's) should be free to remove any part of the rest of her body at will.

That is a "religious" concept. It is the "single personhood (soul) of the container and contained" doctrine (yes,.. I did just make that up).

You religious freedom to believe that should be absolutely respected as a choice, as should all religious beliefs.

But since the permissible ACTIONS (behaviors) that come from that belief directly conflict with the permissible actions of the "separate personhood" camp, a POLITICAL conflict is created.

And all political conflicts are decided by the populace in aggregate.

Thus, they try to restrict "murder" and you to try restrict "removal of choice".


On top of that, I advocate the death penalty because of numerous economical and political reasons, none of which are rooted in religion.

Your argument has no ground to stand on.

My argument's ground is the fact that your definition of "religion" is too limited for me.

If you can see my definition of "religion" as valid, while not necessarily agreeing to it, you can see where my argument is very sensible.

If you equate all valid definitions of things with "must be agreeable to me", then you can call groundless any arguments you wish, that you don't agree with.

My argument is sound on my terms. Whether you agree to those terms is not a factor in the "soundness" of the argument, only the "agreeableness" of your response.

The question is, did you learn anything about how to deal with someone who might hold an opinion different from yours, that doesn't include the phrase "they're stupid and groundless and evil and should be suppressed!"

Yes ... but that sort of thinking leads to a lack of personal responsibility ... you are responsible for what you do and the consequences of thoes actions


I just dont see how some people can think EVERY action is moraly sinfull ... I can see some but not all

I do good things for the same reason everyone does. They want something for themselves. They want to make things more comfortable for themselves or if you're spiritual you do it to make yourself feel good. Hence my choice of medicine as a career

To observe:

"to regard with attention, esp. so as to see or learn something."

"to watch, view, or note for a scientific, official, or other special purpose: to observe an eclipse."

"to keep or maintain in one's action, conduct, etc.: You must observe quiet."

"to obey, comply with, or conform to: to observe laws."

"to show regard for by some appropriate procedure, ceremony, etc.: to observe Palm Sunday."

"to keep or celebrate."

"to adhere to or abide by."

All of the above apply.

What does it mean in the context that you were using it?

In other words, what do you object to in "observing" christmas?

(( Is Bottle ALWAYS this obtuse? ))

Make up your mind Ed. You can't choose if you don't have free will. If you are, by your very nature, bad, then you don't make a choice to be so. If you are not, and you do have a choice, then everything isn't preordained - it's up to you to decide your path.

You can choose. Free agency (a free choice) will never go away. But your nature is corrupted. And you can only desire evil (not necessarily the worst evil). But the responsiblity is still there. And you reject it. You have the choice, and you choose to refuse.

And all the other holidays?

Non-religious holidays I have no problems with. MLK day? Dandy. Labor day? Perfectly alright.

By the way Muryavets, only 2 of the 11 federal endorsed holidays are christian

Like Szanth said, two too many.

Particularly Christmas, which is often padded out to a week or more holiday period, which has an especially difficult impact on families with children whose schools are closed down for a whole week at a time when the parents may not be permitted to take time off from work.

Didnt you just say that no matter what I do i'm always gonna choose the wrong path?

Yes, but that's the point: you choose. No one forced you.

But sense every action is sinfull and a damnable offense what is the difference? so you have one more sin on your head

Its not like by your apparent viewpoint that you would have sined any more making another choice

There are good choices.

We don't have Bank Holidays in the US. And yes, now that you mention it, I do complain about being shut down for many secular and national holidays as well.

I'm not a total stick in the mud. There are a few days that I appreciate being given a break, such as Labor Day and Independence Day. But not always. I didn't always get those days, either. In many of my jobs (in retail), I've had to work to serve all those holiday shoppers. In other jobs, the office shut down and I could not work and didn't get paid for it, either (because the job wasn't good enough to give me paid holidays). I had no choice in the matter.

Yet I got no breaks or compensatory time off for my own holidays, did I? No, far from it. If I wanted to take a day off to celebrate Yule a week before Christmas, I was told I couldn't have that day because of all the work that had to be finished before the long Christmas break. In other words, fuck me and my religion.

My Jewish co-workers got to take their holidays off, but they were also forced to take the Christian holidays off, and if their jobs sucked as bad as mine, they got to lose money off two paychecks, for both religions.

So, by making religious holidays into national holidays, non-Christians are being directly impacted by a religion they do not practice, often in ways that hurt or seriously inconvenience them. I don't know how this plays in the UK, but the US is supposed to have separation of church and state. I do not think any religious holidays should be observed as national holidays in the US. All workers should be permitted to take the same number of days off for their own religious holidays on their own schedules, under the same rules as sick days and personal days.

For a start I apologise. I should have explained that Bank holidays are basically the equivalent of Federal holidays.

Another thing I need to point out is that there is no obligation for private employers to close on these days. They could remain open but if a huge majority of their workforce left anyway what would be the point in remaining open (i'm sure there are exceptions). If you have a problem with the holidays its your employers fault not the states

Yes, but that's the point: you choose. No one forced you.

But if i'm choosing between sins ,and the least sin is still a damnable offence, what difference does it make?

Want rid of Thanksgiving then?

Thanksgiving is a national holiday, not a religious one, despite its religious name and some superficial trappings.

The other religious national holiday is Easter.

And personally, I detest Thanksgiving. I have a long rant about it, but it's off topic.

But if i'm choosing between sins ,and the least sin is still a damnable offence, what difference does it make?

Oh! I understand what you mean now. No. There is good there to choose. But you will not choose it.

Oh! I understand what you mean now. No. There is good there to choose. But you will not choose it.

Yet again I ask what difference would it make then?

Damned one way or the other

If implies a hypothetical situation. I never said God would do that. In fact, after thinking about it, I said He would be unable to do that. But should He do that, I would be required to respond positively. But He won't. So you are in no danger of me murdering you.

When I ask a person if they would kill me, I want them to say, "No."

When I ask you if you would kill me, you say, "Well, I would if God told me to, but I'm fairly certain he won't."

Do you think I'm happy with that answer? Do you think I trust you and your assurances?

Yet again I ask what difference would it make then?

Damned one way or the other

Yes, damned. But that's why Jesus died, so that we might be saved.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Insignificantia
How much does your vote count? The answer is "one vote worth".

Just like all other people (in this country at least [US]).

Would you actually take away the vote of those you disagree with?

The job of a voter (citizen) who is interested in promoting an agenda, is to convince other voters that they should vote as they do, not to take away the votes of those with whom they disagree.

If your "NOT HAPPY" about something, change it, and your ONE AND ONLY tool to accomplish that is by aggregating votes that favor your causes.

You also can't tell people how to feel,.. and would you feel comfortable with someone who tried to tell you how you should feel?


I understand your frustration. But see the fact that their are people who feel differently about things as an opportunity to show how "righteous" your "more correct" ideas are, and then go prove it!


That's part of why I dislike the situation so much. I -can't- disprove it, because there's -nothing- to disprove! Their basis of thinking comes from an ancient book that dictates everything but which direction to piss in.

I, personally, abhor literallists. Mostly because they're just NOT FUN to talk with because they refuse to see from other's eyes.

It's so much fun getting close to people by finding those parts of how you see the world and how they see the world, and literallists (mostly through insecurity and overwhelming panic at "not knowing everything") won't "play the game" of mind exchange.

I find most people here, of the "anti-religion" persuasion, are just as literallist as most literallist "religious" folks, and just as hard to play with.

That's why I consider those "anti-religion" people to be just another form of literallist religious people, with a religion of anti-religiousness.


Again, I say that if you can back your reasons up with logic and reason then I wholeheartedly agree that you should have a place in our government, be it through voting or politics. Otherwise, stay out. For the sake of everyone.

Logic is not the same for everyone. Every individual has their own logic of the world.

The exceptions to this are the hard sciences, and some could argue that that isn't THAT firm.

If you don't understand and operate on the basis of reality, which is that you have to deal with what people REALLY MEAN by what they say, and not WHAT YOU HEAR and think they mean, then your only choice in life to better the world is with the tools of suppression and force.

The other alternative is to continually ask questions and state what YOU mean, while teasing out where you can agree, and how to turn disagreements into excuses for figuring out where, further in, you can come to an understanding if not actual agreement.

It's fine to disagree, but it's BAD to mistake misunderstanding (unexamined disagreement) for simple disagreement.

Thanksgiving is a national holiday, not a religious one, despite its religious name and some superficial trappings.

The other religious national holiday is Easter.

And personally, I detest Thanksgiving. I have a long rant about it, but it's off topic.

I apologise in that case. I'm getting my info from wikipedia which isnt the most reliable. It doesnt seem to have Easter up there though although as i've said my source isnt the most reliable. All your arguments against religious holidays seem to apply to all holidays though.

Yes, damned. But that's why Jesus died, so that we might be saved.

So why would he ask that we live our lives in a certain way if we're gonna end up doing the wrong thing anyway?

When I ask a person if they would kill me, I want them to say, "No."

When I ask you if you would kill me, you say, "Well, I would if God told me to, but I'm fairly certain he won't."

Do you think I'm happy with that answer? Do you think I trust you and your assurances?

First, let me ask you something. If you were told to launch a nuke at New York City or to shoot me, which would you choose? You must do one or the other, so which do you do? You had better say that you would kill me.

Now then, it is highly unlikely that that choice would be presented to you. Therefore, I don't feel threatened. I not only said it was highly unlikey for God to tell me to do that, I said later (after I had thought some more) that it would be impossible. So you have less to worry about me. Now if I go crazy and believe that God told me to kill everyone, the problem is not my religion, but my insanity.

So why would he ask that we live our lives in a certain way if we're gonna end up doing the wrong thing anyway?

Reason one: He wanted to and He's God, so He can.

Reason two: to show us how messed up we are.

Reason three: because even if we don't follow the Law for the right reasons (and are therefore sinning) we will still be promoting a Godly society.

There are some other reasons that escape me at the moment.

Reason one: He wanted to and He's God, so He can.

Reason two: to show us how messed up we are.

Reason three: because even if we don't follow the Law for the right reasons (and are therefore sinning) we will still be promoting a Godly society.

There are some other reasons that escape me at the moment.

But a Godly society can never exist if people are completely unable to live by its rules. Instead they would just be a society of hypocrites.

For a start I apologise. I should have explained that Bank holidays are basically the equivalent of Federal holidays.

Another thing I need to point out is that there is no obligation for private employers to close on these days. They could remain open but if a huge majority of their workforce left anyway what would be the point in remaining open (i'm sure there are exceptions). If you have a problem with the holidays its your employers fault not the states
I know how to apportion my blame.

I blame the government for violating separation of church and state by nationalizing religious holidays.

I blame the employers for imposing the Christian calendar on their non-Christian employees while making no provision for the observance of those employees own religions. You want to shut down your office for Christmas? No problem, but pay me for the time I lose by it, or at least compensate me by letting me take off my own holiday without losing yet more money.

My objection is that the imposition of the Christian calendar is done in an unfair manner to non-Christians. This is in direct response to your assertion that non-Christians are not forced to observe Christian holidays. If I am forced to take the day off because you think that's a day to be in a church, then yes, I am being forced to observe it. If you do not mitigate that by making room for my religion as well, then yes, it is a burden on me.

But a Godly society can never exist if people are completely unable to live by its rules. Instead they would just be a society of hypocrites.

Yes, and? I never said the society would be Godly. I said a Godly society would be promoted. That's splitting hairs, I know.

The main point of the Law is to show us all our problems.

I agree that someone should not vote to impose their religion upon others, but this is not the same thing as voting because of religious beliefs. Religion, like any philosophical viewpoint, is a part of someone and is going to affect their thinking on every subject. As long as there are people who have religious beliefs (and that doesn't seem to be going anywhere), government will be affected by those beliefs, just as it is affected by those who consider themselves feminists, humanists, nihilists, Machiavellian, etc., etc., etc.


The problem comes in when a given law or decision is based in nothing but religion - nothing but "God said so." That *is* a problem, and many of us who are religious think it should be prevented.

THAT is specifically WHY god is incapable of "SPEAKING" in any way that could misconstrued as god-to-human communication exclusively.

The creator made the creation SPECIFICALLY as that which "talks to us". The world (creation) is his voice, which is no voice. The world would have no function without god, and god would have no function without the world.

When a "law" is made that purports to be "the word of god", it is the world speaking (some creation speaking). Always weigh such a "law" against what you believe, and act on how well the law points to god, in your opinion, not on the law's being from god.


Don't get your arrows mixed up.

Laws should point TO god, not FROM god.