Renegade Public Forums
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality
Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #422816 is a reply to message #422814] Fri, 19 March 2010 23:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Altzan is currently offline  Altzan
Messages: 1586
Registered: September 2008
Location: Tennessee
Karma: 0
General (1 Star)
Spoony wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 22:46

firstly, the old testament is no longer in effect, is it? well, jesus said that every jot and tittle of the old laws must be carried out.


No. Otherwise we'd still be doing sacrifices and basically operating under Moses' statutes.
Not every single law in the OT is supposed to be disregarded, but certainly not all of it is still applicable.

Spoony wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 22:46

- two thousand years of horrific anti-semitism and anti-gay people
well, the worst anti-semitism throughout history has always come directly from christianity. in modern times, islam is catching up fast, but christianity still takes the gold. christianity's sole basis for anti-semitism is one line in one of the gospels which says that, at the trial, the jewish religious authorities actually called for the blood of christ to be on their heads and on the heads of all successive generations.
any atheist will regard this as immoral bullshit. even if the whole story is true, it's a stupid thing to say. i could claim responsibility for a crime, whether i was guilty of it or not. what i can't do is say "and my children, who haven't been born yet, are guilty of it too, as will be their children, and their children..."
and yet this one line is the root cause of unbelievable anti-semitism throughout the ages in every society where christianity has ever had power. killing jesus seems like quite a big crime for a christian, and according to the bible, all jews have that guilt, not just the ones who were involved in the trial and crucifixion.


They called for it to be on their heads, huh? So why does that make it the Bible's fault for relaying that information? I don't recall any passage demanding anti-semitism to be carried out - sounds more like man's stupid actions.

Spoony wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 22:46

- violently standing in the way of scientific progress
well, if you take the christian view that you must believe the right things about god and jesus otherwise you'll go to hell, and if you really, really believe in hell, you'll do a great deal to stamp out anything that might make people question the religion.

imagine it. imagine you have a child. someone like me who speaks critically of religion, or someone involved in scientific research on the origins of the earth and of the human species... what they say could make your child turn away from christianity. they can make your child liable to suffer the most horrific punishment ever imagined! would this not make us the very worst of criminals, even worse than someone who tried to murder the child, or tried to rape them? would you not do anything to stamp this out? if not, then you probably don't really believe in hell.


I'm not against legit scientific progress, myself.
So far, all the scientific theories that contradict the Bible have no more evidence than it does.

Spoony wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 22:46

- the crusades
see the particular old testament law i cited earlier, about if a city contains people who worship a different god, you must put the entire city and everyone in it to slaughter.


As soon as you quote it. All you've said so far is that God destoryed SOME cities... not every single one they came across.

Spoony wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 22:46

if believing the wrong thing sends you to hell, then a little torture to set people straight is basically doing them a favour. if you really, really buy the concept of hell, this is the sort of thing you'll do to protect people from it. blasphemy laws are only the beginning.


No... I wouldn't be doing them a favor at all. As I said before, If you don't want to believe after I've given my case, I won't persist.

Spoony wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 22:46

- willing tool of imperialism and of a huge list of dictators throughout the ages
whenever you read about the great historical european empires, you'll find them to be christian monarchies, or successors to them, in every single case. again, if you really believe in heaven and hell, then taking over some foreign country and converting them to christianity, by force if necessary, would be the kindest thing you could do to them.


See above.

Spoony wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 22:46

- enthusiastic ally of fascism in europe
in every single fascist country in europe leading up to the second world war, and there were a hell of a lot more than just germany and italy, in every single case the fascist powers were either set up directly in collusion with the vatican or the vatican became enthusiastic collaborators with them after they'd taken power. fascism was essentially an exact synonym for "catholic right wing". the very first major treaty hitler signed upon taking power was with the vatican, giving the catholic church all sorts of powers in germany, and that was one of the few treaties hitler didn't break. mussolini did the same in italy, croatia was a catholic puppet state of hitler, salazar was in holy orders, etc etc etc. the last time the catholic church supported a "just war" was when hitler and mussolini helped franco overthrow the spanish republic. the catholic church's relationship with every single fascist country was far stronger than its ties with any non-fascist country. the church even ordered hitler's birthday to be celebrated in churches all over, right up until the very end of nazi germany. even after germany was defeated, the vatican helped numerous nazi war criminals escape to south america.

what about hitler himself? well, when he was rising to power, he said over and over and over again that the reason he hated jews so much was because he was a christian. the bible readily accommodates this, as i've outlined above. he said he was doing god's work in combating the jew, and that resonated with a huge number of christians in germany. hitler didn't just flick a switch and made everyone in germany suddenly hate jews... anti-semitism had been bubbling away under the surface for two thousand years, thanks to europe's christian history.


Thank God I don't belong to that Vatican/Catholic splinter-group.

Spoony wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 22:46

- the enormous death toll it's helped to rack up by assisting the spread of AIDS by absurd rules on condoms, especially in africa
well, i'd really love to know the christian justification for spreading lies about the effectiveness of condoms, when millions of africans die of aids every year. in other words, you tell me. i can't figure it out, it doesn't make sense to an atheist, especially since christians generally call themselves pro-life.


I can't tell you - I don't know either, myself. Were they saying condoms were bad and shouldn't be used?

...


Most of your above quotes signify events caused by - as you label them - Christianity in general or specific denominations. My denomination doesn't believe in this stuff:
Anti-semitism - I see no reason to persecute a race for one historical act.
Forced acceptance of religion - No. I DO NOT support that at all.
Fascism - Nope, don't care for that either.

I'm not defending every denomination, just my own and that which is common to all of them. I'm not trying to disregard these events you describe - I'm trying to say that we're just as against their happening as you are.

Spoony wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 22:46

So it's not faith at all, then, is it? It's just you're considering things to be evidence when they're either dubious or outright untrue.


How'd you come to that conclusion?

Spoony wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 22:46

For starters, the bible you have today was by no means finalised shortly after Jesus' death.


Okay.

Spoony wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 22:46

the gospels themselves were written decades after the crucifixion is supposed to have happened, and i'd like you to tell me exactly who by, please, and how they knew what to write, and why they contradict each other so often.


1. Each book in the Bible states who wrote it near the beginning or end.
2. God inspired them to write what they did. They didn't write it by their own intuition alone.
3. Why the gospels contradict? Why four seperate people's own written logs of 30 years do not perfectly match up?

Spoony wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 22:46

and they aren't even all the gospels. quite a lot more than just the new testament four existed... it was a council of men, politicians, who decided which bits went into the bible, and this was centuries after the time jesus was supposed to have lived.


Where'd you learn that from?

Spoony wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 22:46

Firstly how do you know? All you have is an account supposedly written by their slaughterers.


The same account that says there were slaughters int he first place?
If you can say "God did this" and point to a Bible scripture, I can do the same.

Spoony wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 22:46

Secondly, do you quarrel with the idea of sacrificing a child to your god? The bible appears to be in favour of that. Or is it only if it's the right god?


Since when is the Bible in favor of it? Only mention I know of is the test that was given to Abram.

Spoony wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 22:46

Firstly, we're still talking about the old testament here, and there is no mention of hell in the old testament. Either god hadn't made it yet, or he hadn't thought it worth telling anybody about it - which seems implausible, given his general enthusiasm for extravagant punishments in the old testament, and his quickness in threatening them.


Hell existed regardless. There's no seperate place for OT-based people to go. They also had a different set of laws to live under.

Spoony wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 22:46

There's no small print about human sacrifice in the instructions for genocide on religious grounds. So that just leaves: "the only other option is to let all the people live and continue their false worship, and we can't have that". Oh dear. Bit of a departure from your position on the previous page.


My position? I thought we were discussing what God did and why.
Also, what are you trying to say here - that they didn't do sacrifices?

Spoony wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 22:46

I'm saying that there should not be a punishment at all. Disagreeing with him or his rules, or having doubts in his existence, or having doubts that the books which claim to reflect his mind or that the people who claim to speak for him actually do so, is not a crime at all by any sane definition.


I have yet to see parents raise a child, be subject too all of his/her complaints/disobedience/rudeness/etc, and not punish the child in any way.
Man was given a paradise with only one rule to obey... one rule. And he broke it. It's all gone downhill from there, what with those taken under God's care constantly complaining and demanding more.
Or would you rather God not make any rules at all and let humans do as we please, and abolish Heaven and Hell?

Spoony wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 22:46

For starters, it took place in bronze-age Palestine. Not in China, where people could read and write. That was by far the greatest civilisation in the world at the time, and yet it took hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years for the message of Christianity to reach China, at which point the Chinese asked the pretty good question of what took you so long.

To continue, the fact it's so garbled and inconsistent, and to cut a long story short, ridiculous. A huge number of people are not trying not to believe it, as you've put it, but simply find it too stupid to believe. Furthermore, many people think it would be quite horrible if it was true... the greatest dictatorship ever imagined.

Or the greatest paradise. It all depends on how you look at it, and what facts you bring forth and what facts you bury.
I also see the implication that the possibility of any being having greater stature than man is horrible to consider.

Spoony wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 22:46

ah, yes. faith based on evidence. well, any time the evidence wants to present itself, there's no rush. it's only been two thousand years.

but the important part of that statement was the second half.
"Here's an extraordinary claim, we aren't going to show you any evidence, you've got to decide it's true and you'll be horribly punished if you've got your doubts"


There are Bible statements that consist with Astronomy, Paleontology, Meteorology, Biology, Anthropology, Hydrology, Geology, and Physics. Also with Prophecy, Textual Evidence, and Historians.

So yeah, there's evidence.

Spoony wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 22:46

we were talking about whether christians should impose their rules on non-believers. you said that many christians don't. well, can you find any fault with the christians that do?


Yes, because they shouldn't impose their rules on non-belivers. Standing up for what you think is right is one thing, but trying to force someone else to think your way is another.

Spoony wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 22:46

Quote:

This is so because you cannot explain rationality itself. Why do the laws of logic seem to work? Who says so?

We're doing our best to understand them. It doesn't help that faith gets in the way.


"Get the answer book out of my face and let me solve it myself."

Spoony wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 22:46

Quote:

Why do we all have moral ideas about right and wrong and the desire to impose them?

Because most of us care about ourselves, our families, and humanity in general.


Why are we born with that caring attitude? Or are you still trying to figure that out as well?


I cannot imagine how the clockwork of the universe can exist without a clockmaker. ~Voltaire
Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #422818 is a reply to message #422816] Sat, 20 March 2010 00:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Spoony is currently offline  Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator
Altzan wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 00:39

Spoony wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 22:46

firstly, the old testament is no longer in effect, is it? well, jesus said that every jot and tittle of the old laws must be carried out.


No. Otherwise we'd still be doing sacrifices and basically operating under Moses' statutes.
Not every single law in the OT is supposed to be disregarded, but certainly not all of it is still applicable.

So you're deciding which ones are not applicable now? How do you decide that? And how do you reconcile that with Deuteronomy 13:1;
Whatever I am now commanding you, you must keep and observe, adding nothing to it, taking nothing away.

Quote:

They called for it to be on their heads, huh? So why does that make it the Bible's fault for relaying that information? I don't recall any passage demanding anti-semitism to be carried out - sounds more like man's stupid actions.

Because the Bible is absolutely full of cases where innocent people are punished for the crimes committed by others. If you don't object to these, saying that the bible is a source of morals, and if you're further told that all Jews are guilty of the murder of Jesus...

Quote:

I'm not against legit scientific progress, myself.
So far, all the scientific theories that contradict the Bible have no more evidence than it does.

lol... where's the evidence supporting every assertion made by the bible, please?

Quote:

As soon as you quote it. All you've said so far is that God destoryed SOME cities... not every single one they came across.

eh? do you even know what i was talking about? anyone who's read the bible carefully will know which one i mean. along the lines of "if you hear of a town where there are people therein who worship a different god, you must put the entire town to the sword".

this is not a case of "god destroying SOME cities"... it's a moral commandment in your holy book.

and that's by no means the only example of genocide mentioned in the bible. the slaughter of the egyptian firstborn, sodom and gomorrah, the israelites (numerous occasions), noah's ark...

Quote:

No... I wouldn't be doing them a favor at all. As I said before, If you don't want to believe after I've given my case, I won't persist.

so you're quite content to allow others to go to hell, when you could save them?

Quote:

Thank God I don't belong to that Vatican/Catholic splinter-group.

they're the splinter group, are they?

Quote:

I can't tell you - I don't know either, myself. Were they saying condoms were bad and shouldn't be used?

they outright lie about the properties of condoms, saying they not only don't help prevent aids (of course they help) but actually can increase the chances of aids. not only that, but they declare that aids are sinful.

when millions of people are dying in africa every year and we could easily prevent this through a simple campaign of education, just how evil do you have to be to effectively collaborate with the virus?

Quote:

Most of your above quotes signify events caused by - as you label them - Christianity in general or specific denominations. My denomination doesn't believe in this stuff:
Anti-semitism - I see no reason to persecute a race for one historical act.

Your god seems to. Like I said, there are plenty of occasions in the bible where he innocent people are punished for the crimes of others. This is no surprise to me, nor does it present a problem for atheists, of course - it was written at a time when humanity's grasp of morality was pretty feeble, so no wonder it's such a shitty source of morals.

Quote:

Forced acceptance of religion - No. I DO NOT support that at all.

but you can't deny the logic that if someone genuinely did believe in heaven and hell, it would make perfect sense to convert people by force if necessary, and they would be doing their victims the highest of favours.

Quote:

Fascism - Nope, don't care for that either.

cool, but you don't seem to mind dictatorships per se.

Quote:

I'm not defending every denomination, just my own and that which is common to all of them. I'm not trying to disregard these events you describe - I'm trying to say that we're just as against their happening as you are.

You're not just as against the slaughter of innocent children...

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 22:46

So it's not faith at all, then, is it? It's just you're considering things to be evidence when they're either dubious or outright untrue.


How'd you come to that conclusion?

you said it's based on evidence (giving extremely shaky examples) and then basically said "faith" is required to fill in the gaps. how hopeful you must be that you've filled in the gaps correctly...

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 22:46

the gospels themselves were written decades after the crucifixion is supposed to have happened, and i'd like you to tell me exactly who by, please, and how they knew what to write, and why they contradict each other so often.


1. Each book in the Bible states who wrote it near the beginning or end.

"exactly who"
Quote:

2. God inspired them to write what they did. They didn't write it by their own intuition alone.

How do you know that, and how do you know this was not the case for the numerous gospels that were rejected from your bible because a group of politicians decided they should be rejected?
Quote:

3. Why the gospels contradict? Why four seperate people's own written logs of 30 years do not perfectly match up?

Not even vaguely, in some cases.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 22:46

and they aren't even all the gospels. quite a lot more than just the new testament four existed... it was a council of men, politicians, who decided which bits went into the bible, and this was centuries after the time jesus was supposed to have lived.


Where'd you learn that from?

Council of Nicaea, quite common knowledge... perhaps you could explain from where you "learned" that the bible was compiled "very soon after jesus' death"?

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 22:46

Firstly how do you know? All you have is an account supposedly written by their slaughterers.


The same account that says there were slaughters int he first place?
If you can say "God did this" and point to a Bible scripture, I can do the same.

Yes, you can point at a scripture. Then the next step would be to demonstrate its truth.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 22:46

Secondly, do you quarrel with the idea of sacrificing a child to your god? The bible appears to be in favour of that. Or is it only if it's the right god?


Since when is the Bible in favor of it? Only mention I know of is the test that was given to Abram.

And the general who asked for victory and in return he'd sacrifice whatever he saw when he got home, which turned out to be his daughter.

And numerous commands to the israelites.

Quote:

Hell existed regardless. There's no seperate place for OT-based people to go. They also had a different set of laws to live under.

You didn't answer the question. If Hell was there, why didn't god say anything about it in the old testament? He's very keen on making creatively vicious threats to back up his commandments, so if he's got this fiery torture chamber you'll go to if you aren't careful, why not mention it?

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 22:46

There's no small print about human sacrifice in the instructions for genocide on religious grounds. So that just leaves: "the only other option is to let all the people live and continue their false worship, and we can't have that". Oh dear. Bit of a departure from your position on the previous page.


My position? I thought we were discussing what God did and why.
Also, what are you trying to say here - that they didn't do sacrifices?

You're justifying the murder of innocent children. I think it's up to you to prove their adults carried out sacrifices, and then explain why punishing innocent children is justified even if their parents are criminals.

Spoony wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 22:46

I have yet to see parents raise a child, be subject too all of his/her complaints/disobedience/rudeness/etc, and not punish the child in any way.

How is that an analogy?

This god of yours gives us no reason at all to think he exists, and his followers tell us we're rude for asking for evidence (you said "hopeless case", remember) and then we're told we'll suffer horrific punishments if we have doubts. You doubt some religious claims too, remember... basically all the ones except your own version of Christianity, so you know what it's like not to believe somebody's religion.

Quote:

Man was given a paradise with only one rule to obey... one rule. And he broke it.

i assume you're talking about adam and eve. even if that was true, what's that got to do with anyone other than adam and eve?

Quote:

It's all gone downhill from there, what with those taken under God's care constantly complaining and demanding more.

complaining?

your bible is full of genocide, slavery, the punishment of innocents... and you're condemning complaining? as for "demanding more", i wouldn't ask for anything from a character i thought was fictional.

Quote:

Or would you rather God not make any rules at all and let humans do as we please, and abolish Heaven and Hell?

yes, because his rules are absolutely shit. like i said, this is only to be expected... the men who wrote the bible did so two thousand years ago, and their moral standards were pretty crappy by today's standards.

yes, i do want religion to let humans do as we please, some of us do actually like the idea of democracy.

Quote:

Or the greatest paradise. It all depends on how you look at it, and what facts you bring forth and what facts you bury.

Facts?

When are they going to turn up?

As for whether i like it or not, this is essentially based upon the depiction of your god in the bible... a cruel, merciless, unjust, bloodthirsty tyrant. it probably does depend how you look at it... if you like freedom and democracy and morality, it sucks. if you don't care about those, you might think it's paradise.

Quote:

I also see the implication that the possibility of any being having greater stature than man is horrible to consider.

No, it's not.

Quote:

There are Bible statements that consist with Astronomy, Paleontology, Meteorology, Biology, Anthropology, Hydrology, Geology, and Physics. Also with Prophecy, Textual Evidence, and Historians.

So yeah, there's evidence.

Go on?

Quote:

Yes, because they shouldn't impose their rules on non-belivers. Standing up for what you think is right is one thing, but trying to force someone else to think your way is another.

And yet you defend the threatened punishment for thinking the wrong way.

Quote:

"Get the answer book out of my face and let me solve it myself."

Huh?

Quote:

Why are we born with that caring attitude? Or are you still trying to figure that out as well?

I wouldn't necessarily say we were born with it, but the concept of human solidarity, of caring for one's family, has certainly helped us last this long.


Unleash the Renerageâ„¢

Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #423010 is a reply to message #422818] Sun, 21 March 2010 14:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Altzan is currently offline  Altzan
Messages: 1586
Registered: September 2008
Location: Tennessee
Karma: 0
General (1 Star)
Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22

Quote:

but certainly not all of it is still applicable.

So you're deciding which ones are not applicable now? How do you decide that? And how do you reconcile that with Deuteronomy 13:1;
Whatever I am now commanding you, you must keep and observe, adding nothing to it, taking nothing away.


There's also verses saying why the Old Testament was replaced by the New Testament. Several mention the "new covenant" God was planning on/did make with the people. Another mentioned something like, "If the old system was perfect, it wouldn't need to be replaced." It was an update, per se, since the way of life since then has changed.

Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22

if you're further told that all Jews are guilty of the murder of Jesus...


Where is that said?

Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22

lol... where's the evidence supporting every assertion made by the bible, please?


You thus inply that every scientific theory has supporting evidence, which of course is not true.

Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22

eh? do you even know what i was talking about? anyone who's read the bible carefully will know which one i mean. along the lines of "if you hear of a town where there are people therein who worship a different god, you must put the entire town to the sword".


"The primary reason was punishment for wrongdoing. The populations of the destroyed cities had long histories of grievous sins (Gen 15:16, Dt 25:17-19), which often included sacrificing their children to false gods (Dt 12:29-31). Their consciences should have told these people they were doing wrong. Had they listened and changed their ways, they would not have been destroyed. God has said that if any nation is about to be destroyed as punishment but repents, he will forgive them and not destroy them (Jer 18:7-8). In fact, this occurred in the city of Ninevah (Jonah 3:4-10).

In the cities that were given to the Israelites as their inheritance, there was a secondary reason: totally depraved cultures were destroyed so that they would not corrupt the Israelites into committing the same evil acts (Dt 7:1-4, 20:16-18). This did in fact occur: when the Israelites didn't obey God and destroy cities, they too began practicing child sacrifice (Ps 106:34-40).

Additionally, the destruction of wicked nations served as an instructive warning to contemporaries (Josh 2:1-11) and future generations (1 Cor 10:1-11)."

Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22

so you're quite content to allow others to go to hell, when you could save them?


You misunderstood me, so let me try again. I will try to teach the word to others because I don't want them to go to Hell. If, however, they hear and then choose not to believe, I will not relentlessly press the issue.

Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22

they're the splinter group, are they?


They're a splinter group, yes.

Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22

they outright lie about the properties of condoms, saying they not only don't help prevent aids (of course they help) but actually can increase the chances of aids. not only that, but they declare that aids are sinful.


Man, that sucks. I don't see how a disease (if that's the right word) is sinful. Certain methods of contacting it are, but not just having it.

Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22

when millions of people are dying in africa every year and we could easily prevent this through a simple campaign of education, just how evil do you have to be to effectively collaborate with the virus?


How do you know that they were aware that condoms did work, or that they really didn't believe condoms were sinful?

Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22

Quote:

Anti-semitism - I see no reason to persecute a race for one historical act.
Your god seems to. Like I said, there are plenty of occasions in the bible where he innocent people are punished for the crimes of others. This is no surprise to me, nor does it present a problem for atheists, of course - it was written at a time when humanity's grasp of morality was pretty feeble, so no wonder it's such a shitty source of morals.


You still haven't mentioned where the Bible says to persecute an entire race for one sole act.

Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22

but you can't deny the logic that if someone genuinely did believe in heaven and hell, it would make perfect sense to convert people by force if necessary, and they would be doing their victims the highest of favours.


Yes, I can. Converting is a choice, it can't be forced. If I forced you to be baptized and orally declare that you believe the Bible, it wouldn't do jack. You have to mean it.

Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22

cool, but you don't seem to mind dictatorships per se.


If God exists and has all that power that he does, why should we be equal with him?

Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22

Quote:

How'd you come to that conclusion?

you said it's based on evidence (giving extremely shaky examples) and then basically said "faith" is required to fill in the gaps. how hopeful you must be that you've filled in the gaps correctly...


It'd be hard NOT to.

Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22

Quote:

1. Each book in the Bible states who wrote it near the beginning or end.

"exactly who"


"God used men to write down His thoughts much as a businessman uses a secretary. He allowed them to put these thoughts in their own words. But the men themselves said they were inspired.

(2 Peter 1:20-21) 20 For YOU know this first, that no prophecy of Scripture springs from any private interpretation. 21 For prophecy was at no time brought by man's will, but men spoke from God as they were borne along by holy spirit.

Again Paul's words:

(2 Timothy 3:16-17) 16 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.

Approximately 40 men, from Moses to the Apostle John were Bible writers from 1513 BCE to 98 CE. Many may claim otherwise but an internal study of the Bible will show that it is of Divine origin."

Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22

Quote:

2. God inspired them to write what they did. They didn't write it by their own intuition alone.

How do you know that, and how do you know this was not the case for the numerous gospels that were rejected from your bible because a group of politicians decided they should be rejected?


See above.

Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22

Quote:

3. Why the gospels contradict? Why four seperate people's own written logs of 30 years do not perfectly match up?

Not even vaguely, in some cases.


...Mmkay.

Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22

perhaps you could explain from where you "learned" that the bible was compiled "very soon after jesus' death"?


It wasn't something I learned, it was a very poorly placed educated guess. I did some researching into it, which also resulted in the quote above.

Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22

You didn't answer the question. If Hell was there, why didn't god say anything about it in the old testament? He's very keen on making creatively vicious threats to back up his commandments, so if he's got this fiery torture chamber you'll go to if you aren't careful, why not mention it?


It's mentioned. I'm not familiar with the verses myself, yet. Here's one:

And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame [and] everlasting contempt. (Daniel 12:2)

Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22

Spoony wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 22:46

I have yet to see parents raise a child, be subject too all of his/her complaints/disobedience/rudeness/etc, and not punish the child in any way.

How is that an analogy?


It's an analogy because God took care of the growing nation of Israel, and they constantly complained. Example (one of many), God gave the Israelites manna for food. It was easy, all they had to do was pick it up, no planting or harvesting. It fed them and gave them the nourishment they needed. Yet they complained about it. hey even went as far as to say, "Why'd you bring us out of Egypt to die? I'd rather be a slave than die out here!"

Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22

This god of yours gives us no reason at all to think he exists, and his followers tell us we're rude for asking for evidence (you said "hopeless case", remember) and then we're told we'll suffer horrific punishments if we have doubts.


Wow, that whole sentence is wrong.
"This god of yours gives us no reason at all to think he exists" - he gives a plethora of reasons. If a person doesn't want to believe, OK then...
"and his followers tell us we're rude for asking for evidence" - I bet you've never met someone from my denomination. Asking for evidence here doesn't beget rudeness, rather an invitation to study it.
"and then we're told we'll suffer horrific punishments if we have doubts." - Not doubts, no. Refusal, yes. Doubt's a middle ground, it means you haven't thrown your lot one way or another.

Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22

You doubt some religious claims too, remember...


True.

Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22

i assume you're talking about adam and eve. even if that was true, what's that got to do with anyone other than adam and eve?


Because Adam and Eve weren't alone. All throughout the Old Testament are numerous examples of people disobeying one of God's commandments, which were given by God's presence.

Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22

your bible is full of genocide, slavery, the punishment of innocents... and you're condemning complaining?


Right, so when God provides me with my physical needs, asking little in return, then complaining about what I've got is totally okay.

Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22

as for "demanding more", i wouldn't ask for anything from a character i thought was fictional.


You could watch all twelve plagues hit Egypt consecutively and still be doubtful?

Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22

yes, i do want religion to let humans do as we please, some of us do actually like the idea of democracy.


I'd be okay with democracy too - y'know, if we were all gods as well...

Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22

Quote:

I also see the implication that the possibility of any being having greater stature than man is horrible to consider.

No, it's not.

well, you keep mentioning how it's bad to be governed my a higher power... so, why?

Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22

Quote:

There are Bible statements that consist with Astronomy, Paleontology, Meteorology, Biology, Anthropology, Hydrology, Geology, and Physics. Also with Prophecy, Textual Evidence, and Historians.
So yeah, there's evidence.

Go on?


Going On.

Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22

Quote:

Yes, because they shouldn't impose their rules on non-belivers. Standing up for what you think is right is one thing, but trying to force someone else to think your way is another.

And yet you defend the threatened punishment for thinking the wrong way.


Yes. I said I won't force you to believe what I believe, but that isn't because of a lack of the "right way".

Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22

Quote:

Why are we born with that caring attitude? Or are you still trying to figure that out as well?

I wouldn't necessarily say we were born with it, but the concept of human solidarity, of caring for one's family, has certainly helped us last this long.


Those concepts had to have come from somewhere, right?


I cannot imagine how the clockwork of the universe can exist without a clockmaker. ~Voltaire
Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #423077 is a reply to message #423010] Sun, 21 March 2010 18:37 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Spoony is currently offline  Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator
Altzan wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 15:00

There's also verses saying why the Old Testament was replaced by the New Testament. Several mention the "new covenant" God was planning on/did make with the people. Another mentioned something like, "If the old system was perfect, it wouldn't need to be replaced." It was an update, per se, since the way of life since then has changed.

pity not all of the barbarism of the old testament has been "replaced", then, eh? no condemnation of slavery, for example. another example: the story of let he without sin cast the first stone. jesus doesn't say that the old law has been removed, he just says that none of you guys here are capable of enforcing it since you're all sinful. well, that surely means that we can't enforce laws at all, doesn't it? we can't punish adultery?

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22

if you're further told that all Jews are guilty of the murder of Jesus...
Where is that said?

one of the gospels has the jews at the crucifixion calling for the responsibility of the murder of jesus to fall upon themselves and on all their descendants.

any atheist can see that this is ridiculous - it is immoral to hold one person responsible for a crime committed by another - but the bible is absolutely full of this moral bankrupcy. god does it all the time, in the story.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22

lol... where's the evidence supporting every assertion made by the bible, please?


You thus inply that every scientific theory has supporting evidence, which of course is not true.

i said no such thing.

you said this:
"So far, all the scientific theories that contradict the Bible have no more evidence than it does."
that's plainly nonsense. the age of the earth, for example... there's an extraordinary amount of evidence supporting the old-earth theory (about four and a half billion years). the bible would put it more like 6-10 thousand, for which there is no evidence at all.

another would be evolution. darwin didn't just make it up, he studied the evidence and created his theories accordingly. we're finding new fossils all the time. where's the evidence supporting the account given in genesis?

Quote:

"The primary reason was punishment for wrongdoing. The populations of the destroyed cities had long histories of grievous sins (Gen 15:16, Dt 25:17-19), which often included sacrificing their children to false gods (Dt 12:29-31). Their consciences should have told these people they were doing wrong. Had they listened and changed their ways, they would not have been destroyed. God has said that if any nation is about to be destroyed as punishment but repents, he will forgive them and not destroy them (Jer 18:7-8). In fact, this occurred in the city of Ninevah (Jonah 3:4-10).

perhaps you didn't read my statement very carefully. i was not referring to a specific story of god flattening a city; i was citing the instruction given by god to his followers of what to do if you encounter a city where they worship a different god. firstly it doesn't say that they have to be carrying out human sacrifices to qualify for the punishment, just says they need to be worshipping a different god. that's all it takes. secondly the punishment is the total extermination of the city, including children.

Quote:

In the cities that were given to the Israelites as their inheritance, there was a secondary reason: totally depraved cultures were destroyed so that they would not corrupt the Israelites into committing the same evil acts (Dt 7:1-4, 20:16-18). This did in fact occur: when the Israelites didn't obey God and destroy cities, they too began practicing child sacrifice (Ps 106:34-40).

according to the story, the israelities carried out quite a lot of evil acts, usually at the command of god or moses.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22

so you're quite content to allow others to go to hell, when you could save them?


You misunderstood me, so let me try again. I will try to teach the word to others because I don't want them to go to Hell. If, however, they hear and then choose not to believe, I will not relentlessly press the issue.

so you don't mind all that much, is what i was getting at? and you don't actually object to the fact that they will go to hell?

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22

they're the splinter group, are they?


They're a splinter group, yes.

you misunderstood the question. i was asking: so you're the real christian, and they're the splinter group? on what basis do you say that this is the case, as opposed to them being real christians and you being quite mistaken, or as opposed to both of you being wrong?

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22

they outright lie about the properties of condoms, saying they not only don't help prevent aids (of course they help) but actually can increase the chances of aids. not only that, but they declare that aids are sinful.


Man, that sucks. I don't see how a disease (if that's the right word) is sinful. Certain methods of contacting it are, but not just having it.

that's a typo, i meant to say condoms are sinful.

Quote:

How do you know that they were aware that condoms did work, or that they really didn't believe condoms were sinful?

Who cares?

Quote:

You still haven't mentioned where the Bible says to persecute an entire race for one sole act.

race? no. religion? yes.

Quote:

Yes, I can. Converting is a choice, it can't be forced. If I forced you to be baptized and orally declare that you believe the Bible, it wouldn't do jack. You have to mean it.

and what about those of us who simply can't bring ourselves to mean it, who've listened to the arguments for christianity's truth and simply don't believe them, or those who find the morality of the religion objectionable by modern standards?

Quote:

If God exists and has all that power that he does, why should we be equal with him?

Might makes right, then?

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22

Quote:

1. Each book in the Bible states who wrote it near the beginning or end.

"exactly who"


"God used men to write down His thoughts much as a businessman uses a secretary. He allowed them to put these thoughts in their own words. But the men themselves said they were inspired.

(2 Peter 1:20-21) 20 For YOU know this first, that no prophecy of Scripture springs from any private interpretation. 21 For prophecy was at no time brought by man's will, but men spoke from God as they were borne along by holy spirit.

Again Paul's words:

(2 Timothy 3:16-17) 16 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.

Approximately 40 men, from Moses to the Apostle John were Bible writers from 1513 BCE to 98 CE. Many may claim otherwise but an internal study of the Bible will show that it is of Divine origin."

This doesn't answer my question. Who exactly wrote each portion of the bible?

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22

Quote:

2. God inspired them to write what they did. They didn't write it by their own intuition alone.

How do you know that, and how do you know this was not the case for the numerous gospels that were rejected from your bible because a group of politicians decided they should be rejected?


See above.

see above re: not answering the question

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22

You didn't answer the question. If Hell was there, why didn't god say anything about it in the old testament? He's very keen on making creatively vicious threats to back up his commandments, so if he's got this fiery torture chamber you'll go to if you aren't careful, why not mention it?


It's mentioned. I'm not familiar with the verses myself, yet. Here's one:

And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame [and] everlasting contempt. (Daniel 12:2)

That's rather vague, isn't it? Doesn't say: hell's a place where all evil people will go after death to be eternally tortured in fire. There's no mention of why someone would go to one or the other, either as a result of good or bad works or by believing the right thing.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22

Spoony wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 22:46

I have yet to see parents raise a child, be subject too all of his/her complaints/disobedience/rudeness/etc, and not punish the child in any way.

How is that an analogy?


It's an analogy because God took care of the growing nation of Israel, and they constantly complained. Example (one of many), God gave the Israelites manna for food. It was easy, all they had to do was pick it up, no planting or harvesting. It fed them and gave them the nourishment they needed. Yet they complained about it. hey even went as far as to say, "Why'd you bring us out of Egypt to die? I'd rather be a slave than die out here!"

Here was my original quote.
"I'm saying that there should not be a punishment at all. Disagreeing with him or his rules, or having doubts in his existence, or having doubts that the books which claim to reflect his mind or that the people who claim to speak for him actually do so, is not a crime at all by any sane definition."

You still haven't refuted that.

Quote:

Wow, that whole sentence is wrong.
"This god of yours gives us no reason at all to think he exists" - he gives a plethora of reasons. If a person doesn't want to believe, OK then...

Where are these reasons?

And why can't you pull yourself away from this "doesn't want to believe" bullshit? It's simply a case that many people find your assertions unbelievable. This does not imply a choice on our part; it simply means that your assertions are dodgy.

Quote:

"and his followers tell us we're rude for asking for evidence" - I bet you've never met someone from my denomination. Asking for evidence here doesn't beget rudeness, rather an invitation to study it.

then your denomination is in the extreme minority of those who claim to be Christians.

Quote:

"and then we're told we'll suffer horrific punishments if we have doubts." - Not doubts, no. Refusal, yes. Doubt's a middle ground, it means you haven't thrown your lot one way or another.

again, you're breathtakingly ignorant.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22

You doubt some religious claims too, remember...


True.

and what if you're wrong, for example, about the islamic claim that you need to be a muslim otherwise you'll end up in hell?

Quote:

Because Adam and Eve weren't alone. All throughout the Old Testament are numerous examples of people disobeying one of God's commandments, which were given by God's presence.

and all throughout the old testament are numerous examples of god punishing innocent people for the crimes of others... and here you are defending it.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22

your bible is full of genocide, slavery, the punishment of innocents... and you're condemning complaining?


Right, so when God provides me with my physical needs, asking little in return, then complaining about what I've got is totally okay.

did you read the statement of mine you just quoted?

the one where i talked about the genocide and slavery in your horrific holy book?

and you think the problem is someone complaining about your religion?

holy shit.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22

as for "demanding more", i wouldn't ask for anything from a character i thought was fictional.


You could watch all twelve plagues hit Egypt consecutively and still be doubtful?

i said *i* wouldn't demand more. i wouldn't demand anything from god, since i've never been shown a convincing reason to think he exists at all, let alone cares about me.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22

yes, i do want religion to let humans do as we please, some of us do actually like the idea of democracy.


I'd be okay with democracy too - y'know, if we were all gods as well...

so you're saying you do reject the idea of humans determining the way our societies work by means of voting? just want to make sure i'm getting that right.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22

Quote:

I also see the implication that the possibility of any being having greater stature than man is horrible to consider.

No, it's not.

well, you keep mentioning how it's bad to be governed my a higher power... so, why?

excuse me, but the people who have spent thousands and thousands of years trying to tell us what to do are not higher powers. they just say they work for one.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22

Go on?


Going On.

is that the best you can do?
One Type—The Messianic Prophecies

Of these prophecies, the most striking examples are the predictions about an "anointed one" ("Messiah" in Hebrew) who was to arrive in the future. About 4 BC, a miraculous event occurred—a boy named Jesus was born to a virgin named Mary.

How do you know Jesus' mother was a virgin?

And what would that prove even if it was true? if you and i are arguing, can i just say "you lose this argument". you: "why's that?" me: "because my mother didn't have sex with a man". a few animals can reproduce this way, so it's not totally unthinkable that a human might as a result of some mutation or something... why would it prove that the child had any divine power, and why would it vindicate everything they said?

His fulfillment of these prophecies was very spectacular: Jesus gave sight to the blind, made the lame walk, cured those who had leprosy, gave the deaf hearing, and raised people from the dead! These miracles and others were done many times in front of thousands of witnesses for three years. About 30 AD, Jesus was crucified (a prophecy) and died (a prophecy). Three days later he rose from the dead (another prophecy), after which He was seen by over 500 witnesses.
How do you know he did any of these things?

Secular history supports the Bible. For example, in The Antiquities of the Jews, book 18, chapter 3, paragraph 3 the famous historian Flavius Josephus writes:

"Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works—a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

Josephus was not a contemporary of Jesus. So the very best you can say about him is that he was repeating what he'd heard. That's evidence, is it?

here's the only other "secular history supports the bible" statement i see.
In 115 AD, P. Cornelius Tacitus wrote the following passage that refers to Jesus (called "Christus," which means "The Messiah") in book 15, chapter 44 of The Annals:

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired."

the only part referring in the bible here is "christus suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of tiberius at the hands of pontius pilatus" - well, so what? there was someone who'd been called the christ (doesn't even name him as Jesus) who was executed?

so what?

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22

Quote:

Yes, because they shouldn't impose their rules on non-belivers. Standing up for what you think is right is one thing, but trying to force someone else to think your way is another.

And yet you defend the threatened punishment for thinking the wrong way.


Yes. I said I won't force you to believe what I believe, but that isn't because of a lack of the "right way".

How many people are in your "denomination?"

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22

Quote:

Why are we born with that caring attitude? Or are you still trying to figure that out as well?

I wouldn't necessarily say we were born with it, but the concept of human solidarity, of caring for one's family, has certainly helped us last this long.


Those concepts had to have come from somewhere, right?

Evolution? We've gradually become more and more intelligent, and most of us have figured out that being good towards the people around us, or at least leaving them alone, is generally more beneficial than being twats towards us.

The idea of protecting your family being a good idea is hardly difficult to understand.


Unleash the Renerageâ„¢

Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #423442 is a reply to message #422616] Tue, 23 March 2010 21:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Tunaman
Messages: 1189
Registered: January 2005
Karma: 2
General (1 Star)
That's pretty awful. It's kind of worrying that those are the people that are caring for children.

Honestly, I'm pretty terrified at the amount of the power that religious institutions hold all over the world. It is pretty ridiculous, even here..


http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/9055/tunamanlmao.png
Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #423443 is a reply to message #423077] Tue, 23 March 2010 21:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Altzan is currently offline  Altzan
Messages: 1586
Registered: September 2008
Location: Tennessee
Karma: 0
General (1 Star)
Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37

pity not all of the barbarism of the old testament has been "replaced", then, eh? no condemnation of slavery, for example. another example: the story of let he without sin cast the first stone. jesus doesn't say that the old law has been removed, he just says that none of you guys here are capable of enforcing it since you're all sinful. well, that surely means that we can't enforce laws at all, doesn't it? we can't punish adultery?


I have no idea what you mean.

Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22

if you're further told that all Jews are guilty of the murder of Jesus...
Where is that said?

one of the gospels has the jews at the crucifixion calling for the responsibility of the murder of jesus to fall upon themselves and on all their descendants.


OK, so how does that translate into a Biblical command to kill Jews?

Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37

you said this:
"So far, all the scientific theories that contradict the Bible have no more evidence than it does."
that's plainly nonsense. the age of the earth, for example... there's an extraordinary amount of evidence supporting the old-earth theory (about four and a half billion years). the bible would put it more like 6-10 thousand, for which there is no evidence at all.


I wouldn't call it 'extraordinary'. 'Speculative', more like.
For example, what about Carbon-14 or helium present in rocks? If they've been around as long as billions of years, they would have disappeared. Yet they still remain.

Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37

another would be evolution. darwin didn't just make it up, he studied the evidence and created his theories accordingly. we're finding new fossils all the time. where's the evidence supporting the account given in genesis?


What about the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or Entropy?

Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37

perhaps you didn't read my statement very carefully. i was not referring to a specific story of god flattening a city; i was citing the instruction given by god to his followers of what to do if you encounter a city where they worship a different god. firstly it doesn't say that they have to be carrying out human sacrifices to qualify for the punishment, just says they need to be worshipping a different god. that's all it takes. secondly the punishment is the total extermination of the city, including children.


Can you cite the specific verse, since you seem so familiar with it?

Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37

so you don't mind all that much, is what i was getting at? and you don't actually object to the fact that they will go to hell?


Yes, I mind. But if someone doesn't want to "hear, believe, and repent", then what am I supposed to do, eh? Pressing the issue won't help, forcing it won't help.

Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37

you misunderstood the question. i was asking: so you're the real christian, and they're the splinter group? on what basis do you say that this is the case, as opposed to them being real christians and you being quite mistaken, or as opposed to both of you being wrong?

I suppose all Christian denominations are splinter groups now, since it would be extremely difcult to prove which particlular one was the stem.
The main basis of our belief is the Bible, whereas other groups like Baptists and Catholics aren't following Bible scripture.

Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37

Quote:

How do you know that they were aware that condoms did work, or that they really didn't believe condoms were sinful?

Who cares?


Apparently you do... If you're going to say that they were spreading lies about condoms, it would be a good idea to know the intention behind the act, right?

Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37

Quote:

You still haven't mentioned where the Bible says to persecute an entire race for one sole act.

race? no. religion? yes.

Go on...

Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37

Quote:

If God exists and has all that power that he does, why should we be equal with him?

Might makes right, then?


You didn't answer the question.

Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37

This doesn't answer my question. Who exactly wrote each portion of the bible?


"Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy = Moses - 1400 B.C.
Joshua = Joshua - 1350 B.C.
Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel = Samuel/Nathan/Gad - 1000 - 900 B.C.
1 Kings, 2 Kings = Jeremiah - 600 B.C.
1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah = Ezra - 450 B.C.
Esther = Mordecai - 400 B.C.
Job = Moses - 1400 B.C.
Psalms = several different authors, mostly David - 1000 - 400 B.C.
Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon = Solomon - 900 B.C.
Isaiah = Isaiah - 700 B.C.
Jeremiah, Lamentations = Jeremiah - 600 B.C.
Ezekiel = Ezekiel - 550 B.C.
Daniel = Daniel - 550 B.C.
Hosea = Hosea - 750 B.C.
Joel = Joel - 850 B.C.
Amos = Amos - 750 B.C.
Obadiah = Obadiah - 600 B.C.
Jonah = Jonah - 700 B.C.
Micah = Micah - 700 B.C.
Nahum = Nahum - 650 B.C.
Habakkuk = Habakkuk - 600 B.C.
Zephaniah = Zephaniah - 650 B.C.
Haggai = Haggai - 520 B.C.
Zechariah = Zechariah - 500 B.C.
Malachi = Malachi - 430 B.C.
Matthew = Matthew - A.D. 55
Mark = John Mark - A.D. 50
Luke = Luke - A.D. 60
John = John - A.D. 90
Acts = Luke - A.D. 65
Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon = Paul - A.D. 50-70
Hebrews = unknown, mostly likely Paul, Luke, Barnabas, or Apollos - A.D. 65
James = James - A.D. 45
1 Peter, 2 Peter = Peter - A.D. 60
1 John, 2 John, 3 John = John - A.D. 90
Jude = Jude - A.D. 60
Revelation = John - A.D. 90"

Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37

How do you know that, and how do you know this was not the case for the numerous gospels that were rejected from your bible because a group of politicians decided they should be rejected?


Because the writers themselves said they were inspired by God.

Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37

Here was my original quote.
"I'm saying that there should not be a punishment at all. Disagreeing with him or his rules, or having doubts in his existence, or having doubts that the books which claim to reflect his mind or that the people who claim to speak for him actually do so, is not a crime at all by any sane definition."

You still haven't refuted that.


I can't refute an opinion, which is all that is.

Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37

And why can't you pull yourself away from this "doesn't want to believe" bullshit? It's simply a case that many people find your assertions unbelievable. This does not imply a choice on our part; it simply means that your assertions are dodgy.


Because it isn't bullshit. If you cannot bring yourself to understand, then you have the choice of pursuing the issue via study. If they're "dodgy", then you can't blame the claim without even putting any more effort into understanding.

Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37

then your denomination is in the extreme minority of those who claim to be Christians.


When we travel, it's certainly very hard to find a church that we can go to. Most of the ones we see are either Baptist or Catholic (which makes sense, they're probably more popular because of their "faith only" belief).

Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37

and what if you're wrong, for example, about the islamic claim that you need to be a muslim otherwise you'll end up in hell?


Then I'm wrong. Your point?

Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37

did you read the statement of mine you just quoted?
the one where i talked about the genocide and slavery in your horrific holy book?
and you think the problem is someone complaining about your religion?
holy shit.


Hitler killed millions of Jews, and all you can complain about is Catholics in your government?
You're changing the subject to avoid my original point, even changing my words. Is that the best argument you have?

Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37

Quote:

Because Adam and Eve weren't alone. All throughout the Old Testament are numerous examples of people disobeying one of God's commandments, which were given by God's presence.

and all throughout the old testament are numerous examples of god punishing innocent people for the crimes of others... and here you are defending it.


Changing the subject again?
You sure like to jump to that point a lot, especially when it's irrelevant to my quote.

Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37

so you're saying you do reject the idea of humans determining the way our societies work by means of voting? just want to make sure i'm getting that right.


No, I like the system a lot. But the system only works when everyone involved is of equal status.

Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37

excuse me, but the people who have spent thousands and thousands of years trying to tell us what to do are not higher powers. they just say they work for one.


Hypothetically, if you knew for a fact that there was a higher power, would you or would you not give allegiance to it? Or would you fight it?
That's all I'm asking, here.

Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37

How do you know Jesus' mother was a virgin?
And what would that prove even if it was true? if you and i are arguing, can i just say "you lose this argument". you: "why's that?" me: "because my mother didn't have sex with a man". a few animals can reproduce this way, so it's not totally unthinkable that a human might as a result of some mutation or something... why would it prove that the child had any divine power, and why would it vindicate everything they said?


Alone, if proves little (despite the fact that there are little to no other evidence of a virgin giving birth before), but the baby grew and performed miracles, which is proof enough.
Of course, this visible proof was long ago and only written report remains.

Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37

His fulfillment of these prophecies was very spectacular: Jesus gave sight to the blind, made the lame walk, cured those who had leprosy, gave the deaf hearing, and raised people from the dead! These miracles and others were done many times in front of thousands of witnesses for three years. About 30 AD, Jesus was crucified (a prophecy) and died (a prophecy). Three days later he rose from the dead (another prophecy), after which He was seen by over 500 witnesses.
How do you know he did any of these things?


What about all the testimony of people who saw it happen? Or wait, since it was so long ago it can't be valid, right?

Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37

How many people are in your "denomination?"


I don't know for a fact. A good indicator is that we always worship at a "Church of Christ", since that's the only name the Bible supports.


I cannot imagine how the clockwork of the universe can exist without a clockmaker. ~Voltaire
Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #423461 is a reply to message #423443] Wed, 24 March 2010 03:14 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Spoony is currently offline  Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator
Altzan wrote on Tue, 23 March 2010 22:25

Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37

pity not all of the barbarism of the old testament has been "replaced", then, eh? no condemnation of slavery, for example. another example: the story of let he without sin cast the first stone. jesus doesn't say that the old law has been removed, he just says that none of you guys here are capable of enforcing it since you're all sinful. well, that surely means that we can't enforce laws at all, doesn't it? we can't punish adultery?


I have no idea what you mean.

it's actually very straightforward.

the baying religious mob bring a woman who they've caught committing adultery before jesus, and say we need to stone her to death.

jesus says: let he without sin cast the first stone. everyone there is sinful (indeed christianity says we're all sinful), so nobody can stone her, and she gets away with it. so that means we can't have and enforce any laws at all, because the only people allowed to punish offenders would have to be entirely sinless, and none of us are, are we?

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22

if you're further told that all Jews are guilty of the murder of Jesus...
Where is that said?

one of the gospels has the jews at the crucifixion calling for the responsibility of the murder of jesus to fall upon themselves and on all their descendants.


OK, so how does that translate into a Biblical command to kill Jews?

it's not exactly much of a jump to get from "all jews are responsible of the murder of our god" to actually doing something nasty to jews, is it?

but like i said, you probably aren't taught the bad parts of christianity, how dangerous it used to be to be jewish around easter time.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37

you said this:
"So far, all the scientific theories that contradict the Bible have no more evidence than it does."
that's plainly nonsense. the age of the earth, for example... there's an extraordinary amount of evidence supporting the old-earth theory (about four and a half billion years). the bible would put it more like 6-10 thousand, for which there is no evidence at all.


I wouldn't call it 'extraordinary'. 'Speculative', more like.
For example, what about Carbon-14 or helium present in rocks? If they've been around as long as billions of years, they would have disappeared. Yet they still remain.

it's really odd you mention carbon-14 to try to support the young-earth claim.

the fact carbon-14 has a halflife and decays over time is such a helpful thing in determining the age of stuff. it doesn't get you as far as billions of years, i think it's only good for about 50,000 or something, but that would still make the 6-10,000 year assertion made by young-earth creationists look a bit stupid.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37

another would be evolution. darwin didn't just make it up, he studied the evidence and created his theories accordingly. we're finding new fossils all the time. where's the evidence supporting the account given in genesis?


What about the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or Entropy?

What about it? My question was: where's the evidence supporting the account given in Genesis? So how does this support the account given in Genesis?

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37

perhaps you didn't read my statement very carefully. i was not referring to a specific story of god flattening a city; i was citing the instruction given by god to his followers of what to do if you encounter a city where they worship a different god. firstly it doesn't say that they have to be carrying out human sacrifices to qualify for the punishment, just says they need to be worshipping a different god. that's all it takes. secondly the punishment is the total extermination of the city, including children.


Can you cite the specific verse, since you seem so familiar with it?

you've seriously never heard of it?

i can't match verses to numbers off the top of my head, but i would have thought an avowed christian would at least have read the bible through.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37

so you don't mind all that much, is what i was getting at? and you don't actually object to the fact that they will go to hell?


Yes, I mind. But if someone doesn't want to "hear, believe, and repent", then what am I supposed to do, eh? Pressing the issue won't help, forcing it won't help.

what are you supposed to do?

for starters, you could ask god to make his "revelation" a little less ridiculous, or you could ask god not to be such a bastard that he feels the need to dish out the worst crime imaginable just for the "crime" of disbelieving in his existence or disagreeing with his religion.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37

you misunderstood the question. i was asking: so you're the real christian, and they're the splinter group? on what basis do you say that this is the case, as opposed to them being real christians and you being quite mistaken, or as opposed to both of you being wrong?

I suppose all Christian denominations are splinter groups now, since it would be extremely difcult to prove which particlular one was the stem.
The main basis of our belief is the Bible, whereas other groups like Baptists and Catholics aren't following Bible scripture.

You started off that statement so well. It would indeed be difficult to prove that, for example, Jesus said anything that the bible reports him as saying, or did anything that the bible reports him as doing. Since the four gospels wildly contradict each other, this seems like quite an important question...

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37

Quote:

How do you know that they were aware that condoms did work, or that they really didn't believe condoms were sinful?

Who cares?


Apparently you do... If you're going to say that they were spreading lies about condoms, it would be a good idea to know the intention behind the act, right?

i'm more concerned with the fact millions of people are dying.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37

Quote:

You still haven't mentioned where the Bible says to persecute an entire race for one sole act.

race? no. religion? yes.

Go on...

we're back to anti-semitism.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37

Quote:

If God exists and has all that power that he does, why should we be equal with him?

Might makes right, then?


You didn't answer the question.

I did, actually, with another question. Might makes right, i.e. whoever is most powerful ought to be in charge and has the moral high ground...

by this logic, democracy would be impossible. Barack Obama exists, and has an extraordinary amount of power. (he's already got two up on your god). So why should you get a vote from now on?

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37

This doesn't answer my question. Who exactly wrote each portion of the bible?


"Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy = Moses - 1400 B.C.
Joshua = Joshua - 1350 B.C.
Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel = Samuel/Nathan/Gad - 1000 - 900 B.C.
1 Kings, 2 Kings = Jeremiah - 600 B.C.
1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah = Ezra - 450 B.C.
Esther = Mordecai - 400 B.C.
Job = Moses - 1400 B.C.
Psalms = several different authors, mostly David - 1000 - 400 B.C.
Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon = Solomon - 900 B.C.
Isaiah = Isaiah - 700 B.C.
Jeremiah, Lamentations = Jeremiah - 600 B.C.
Ezekiel = Ezekiel - 550 B.C.
Daniel = Daniel - 550 B.C.
Hosea = Hosea - 750 B.C.
Joel = Joel - 850 B.C.
Amos = Amos - 750 B.C.
Obadiah = Obadiah - 600 B.C.
Jonah = Jonah - 700 B.C.
Micah = Micah - 700 B.C.
Nahum = Nahum - 650 B.C.
Habakkuk = Habakkuk - 600 B.C.
Zephaniah = Zephaniah - 650 B.C.
Haggai = Haggai - 520 B.C.
Zechariah = Zechariah - 500 B.C.
Malachi = Malachi - 430 B.C.
Matthew = Matthew - A.D. 55
Mark = John Mark - A.D. 50
Luke = Luke - A.D. 60
John = John - A.D. 90
Acts = Luke - A.D. 65
Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon = Paul - A.D. 50-70
Hebrews = unknown, mostly likely Paul, Luke, Barnabas, or Apollos - A.D. 65
James = James - A.D. 45
1 Peter, 2 Peter = Peter - A.D. 60
1 John, 2 John, 3 John = John - A.D. 90
Jude = Jude - A.D. 60
Revelation = John - A.D. 90"

Doesn't answer my question. Who were they?

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37

How do you know that, and how do you know this was not the case for the numerous gospels that were rejected from your bible because a group of politicians decided they should be rejected?


Because the writers themselves said they were inspired by God.

how do you even know they said that?

once you've answered that, how do you know they were correct, as opposed to crazy or lying or just plain wrong?
once you've answered that, how do you know this wasn't the case for the rejected gospels?

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37

Here was my original quote.
"I'm saying that there should not be a punishment at all. Disagreeing with him or his rules, or having doubts in his existence, or having doubts that the books which claim to reflect his mind or that the people who claim to speak for him actually do so, is not a crime at all by any sane definition."

You still haven't refuted that.


I can't refute an opinion, which is all that is.

it wouldn't be the first time i've made the assertion that it's plain evil to threaten someone with horrific punishment just for the "crime" of disagreeing with you or doubting what you say, would it?

i vaguely recall that the last time i tried getting you to understand just what a sick and immoral way this is to behave, you said i had a "binding to science" (????)

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37

And why can't you pull yourself away from this "doesn't want to believe" bullshit? It's simply a case that many people find your assertions unbelievable. This does not imply a choice on our part; it simply means that your assertions are dodgy.


Because it isn't bullshit.

yes it is, you don't know what you're talking about again. your religion makes incredibly feeble claims, it's had two thousand years to prove them and it hasn't even gotten to square one... stop acting like this extraordinary failure is the fault of everyone else instead of the religion's fault.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37

and what if you're wrong, for example, about the islamic claim that you need to be a muslim otherwise you'll end up in hell?


Then I'm wrong. Your point?

You don't mind being spoken to in that tone of voice? Someone tells you you must agree with them or you'll go to hell?

There's quite an interesting verse in the islamic scripture (i can't tell you off the top of my head if it's the qur'an or the hadith, but bear with me)... it basically says "these guys who don't believe in allah, well, even if we did prove it to them they still wouldn't believe". I'm paraphrasing of course, but that's the gist. You probably read that and thought the same thing i did... it's either the rantings of a lunatic or it's quite a cunning attempt to cover up a lie. It's from a different religion, so you can probably see that without too much trouble.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37

did you read the statement of mine you just quoted?
the one where i talked about the genocide and slavery in your horrific holy book?
and you think the problem is someone complaining about your religion?
holy shit.


Hitler killed millions of Jews, and all you can complain about is Catholics in your government?

uh no, i oppose murder and genocide and slavery and oppression wherever i find it. there's not really much of a need to speak out against the third reich now.

Quote:

You're changing the subject to avoid my original point, even changing my words. Is that the best argument you have?

you'd better back this up.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37

Quote:

Because Adam and Eve weren't alone. All throughout the Old Testament are numerous examples of people disobeying one of God's commandments, which were given by God's presence.

and all throughout the old testament are numerous examples of god punishing innocent people for the crimes of others... and here you are defending it.


Changing the subject again?
You sure like to jump to that point a lot, especially when it's irrelevant to my quote.

firstly it's not irrelevant at all, secondly it's quite an important point... the bible continually shows god as willing to punish innocents for crimes committed by somebody else. what a shitty source of morals... no wonder you don't know right from wrong.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37

so you're saying you do reject the idea of humans determining the way our societies work by means of voting? just want to make sure i'm getting that right.


No, I like the system a lot. But the system only works when everyone involved is of equal status.

so who's not "of equal status"?

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37

excuse me, but the people who have spent thousands and thousands of years trying to tell us what to do are not higher powers. they just say they work for one.


Hypothetically, if you knew for a fact that there was a higher power, would you or would you not give allegiance to it? Or would you fight it?
That's all I'm asking, here.

if there was a "higher power", i would not think that this justified a dictatorship over us. i'd still be in favour of democracy, human rights, stuff like that.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37

How do you know Jesus' mother was a virgin?
And what would that prove even if it was true? if you and i are arguing, can i just say "you lose this argument". you: "why's that?" me: "because my mother didn't have sex with a man". a few animals can reproduce this way, so it's not totally unthinkable that a human might as a result of some mutation or something... why would it prove that the child had any divine power, and why would it vindicate everything they said?


Alone, if proves little (despite the fact that there are little to no other evidence of a virgin giving birth before), but the baby grew and performed miracles, which is proof enough.
Of course, this visible proof was long ago and only written report remains.

firstly, there's "little to no evidence of a virgin giving birth before"... indeed. that includes mary and jesus.
there's the story that it happened... but then there have been countless gods and messiahs who've been reported as being born in a similar way, jesus is only one of them... i wonder how many of the others you think are correct.

secondly, even if the virgin birth AND the miracles are true, why would that vindicate everything jesus said? why would that make all his moral teachings valid?

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37

His fulfillment of these prophecies was very spectacular: Jesus gave sight to the blind, made the lame walk, cured those who had leprosy, gave the deaf hearing, and raised people from the dead! These miracles and others were done many times in front of thousands of witnesses for three years. About 30 AD, Jesus was crucified (a prophecy) and died (a prophecy). Three days later he rose from the dead (another prophecy), after which He was seen by over 500 witnesses.
How do you know he did any of these things?


What about all the testimony of people who saw it happen? Or wait, since it was so long ago it can't be valid, right?

What about all the testimony of people who claim to have been abducted by UFOs? What about all the people who are convinced - absolutely convinced - in the truth of other religions?

If someone says they saw a miracle, then it's a good idea to consider the odds here.

he may be correct, he may be honestly mistaken (the mind plays tricks), he may be downright crazy, he may just be lying to you. what's most likely, do you think?

now imagine the whole thing is not first-hand but third-hand. you aren't talking to someone who says he saw it himself... you're reading a book. for starters, you have no way of knowing who it was written by.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37

How many people are in your "denomination?"


I don't know for a fact. A good indicator is that we always worship at a "Church of Christ", since that's the only name the Bible supports.
[/quote]
you said earlier that it isn't all that numerous, which brings me to the point of the question.

so your denomination are the "real" christians, right? (they all say that, but never mind that for now).

isn't god a bit of a prick for making his message so ludicrously cryptic that only a small proportion of the population get it right, and punishing everyone who gets it wrong?

what a twat.


Unleash the Renerageâ„¢

Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #423474 is a reply to message #423461] Wed, 24 March 2010 05:26 Go to previous messageGo to next message
jnz is currently offline  jnz
Messages: 3396
Registered: July 2006
Location: 30th century
Karma: 0
General (3 Stars)
Spoony wrote on Wed, 24 March 2010 10:14

what a twat.

Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #423507 is a reply to message #422616] Wed, 24 March 2010 13:40 Go to previous messageGo to next message
CarrierII is currently offline  CarrierII
Messages: 3804
Registered: February 2006
Location: England
Karma: 0
General (3 Stars)

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics essentially states: A system will always lose energy to the envrioment (typically as light, heat or sound) because otherwise no energy has changed from one form (such as gravitational potential energy or chemical potential energy) into another, such as light and therefore no work can be done.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_law_of_thermodynamics - explains it better.

So, all I have to say is... How on Earth does that back up Genesis?



Renguard is a wonderful initiative
Toggle Spoiler
Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #423791 is a reply to message #422616] Fri, 26 March 2010 09:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Altzan is currently offline  Altzan
Messages: 1586
Registered: September 2008
Location: Tennessee
Karma: 0
General (1 Star)
Spoony wrote on Wed, 24 March 2010 04:14

it's actually very straightforward.

the baying religious mob bring a woman who they've caught committing adultery before jesus, and say we need to stone her to death.

jesus says: let he without sin cast the first stone. everyone there is sinful (indeed christianity says we're all sinful), so nobody can stone her, and she gets away with it. so that means we can't have and enforce any laws at all, because the only people allowed to punish offenders would have to be entirely sinless, and none of us are, are we?


"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

"This is another counterfeiting of the Scriptures many have tried to use to shame us for what we do in his name. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" is not speaking to judging. Let me explain.

Using the KJV this time, in John 8:1 - 11 scribes and Pharisees had caught a woman in the act of adultery (the woman commonly referred to as the prostitute) and told Jesus who was teaching in the temple that the Mosaic Law required she be stoned to death. Trying to make an opportunity of this to trick Jesus that they might accuse Him, they, with stones in hand, asked Jesus what He says about the Law. After Jesus tried to ignore their repeated questioning, He told them "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." One by one each man dropped his stone and walked away.

Jesus was not arguing with the judgment. Nor was Jesus arguing the law nor the woman's guilt. Jesus was arguing with our right to execute the woman. Once all the men had dropped their stones Jesus confronted the woman and asked her if any of the men were still there to condemn her. When she answered "No man, Lord", Jesus told her that neither did He - He forgave her of her sin. He did not excuse the sin of adultery/prostitution, he forgave her of it. All behavior and thought that is sinful before forgiveness is still sinful after forgiveness. Not only was Jesus not afraid to call a sin a sin, He was not afraid to call a sinner a sinner. He even reminded her of the sin of adultery/prostitution by telling her "Go and sin no more."

The point? Jesus did not argue the act of judging the chosen behavior of the adulteress/prostitute."

Spoony wrote on Wed, 24 March 2010 04:14

it's not exactly much of a jump to get from "all jews are responsible of the murder of our god" to actually doing something nasty to jews, is it?


God didn't say it, one man did. One man said that all Jews should be responsible. That doesn't translate to a Biblical command.

Spoony wrote on Wed, 24 March 2010 04:14

What about it? My question was: where's the evidence supporting the account given in Genesis? So how does this support the account given in Genesis?


I wasn't providing evidence supporting Genesis, I was asking in terms of evolution.

Spoony wrote on Wed, 24 March 2010 04:14

i can't match verses to numbers off the top of my head, but i would have thought an avowed christian would at least have read the bible through.


How does that make sense? Yes, I study the Bible, but I don't know all of its contents. It would take years to effectively read and study every Bible verse.

Spoony wrote on Wed, 24 March 2010 04:14

for starters, you could ask god to make his "revelation" a little less ridiculous, or you could ask god not to be such a bastard that he feels the need to dish out the worst crime imaginable just for the "crime" of disbelieving in his existence or disagreeing with his religion.


There are plenty of people who think the revelation was just fine, and don't see how his commandments are ridiculous. So, why should your opinion be any more important than theirs?

Spoony wrote on Wed, 24 March 2010 04:14

Quote:

Apparently you do... If you're going to say that they were spreading lies about condoms, it would be a good idea to know the intention behind the act, right?

i'm more concerned with the fact millions of people are dying.


So you only care for the act and not the motive? Isn't that an ignorant viewpoint?

Spoony wrote on Wed, 24 March 2010 04:14

how do you even know they said that?

once you've answered that, how do you know they were correct, as opposed to crazy or lying or just plain wrong?
once you've answered that, how do you know this wasn't the case for the rejected gospels?


1. They said it in the gospels they wrote.
2. I don't "know" that, but as you said, odds - if that many people (the writers) all claimed the same thing, they either are telling the truth or a coordinated lie.
3. I don't, since I haven't read said gospels.

Spoony wrote on Wed, 24 March 2010 04:14

it wouldn't be the first time i've made the assertion that it's plain evil to threaten someone with horrific punishment just for the "crime" of disagreeing with you or doubting what you say, would it?


No, it wouldn't be. It's your motto, I guess.
By that logic, though, you shouldn't punish a child molester because he doesn't agree with the anti-pedophilia law.

Spoony wrote on Wed, 24 March 2010 04:14

Quote:

You're changing the subject to avoid my original point, even changing my words. Is that the best argument you have?

you'd better back this up.


I'm referencing to actions made by the people in the Old Testament, and you keep turning it around to "Look what GOD did!"
And it wasn't "complaining about your religion" as you quoted me.

Spoony wrote on Wed, 24 March 2010 04:14

if there was a "higher power", i would not think that this justified a dictatorship over us. i'd still be in favour of democracy, human rights, stuff like that.


I'm in favor of democracy and human rights among humans.
I'm suprised that you think that a people completely created by another being by his will alone should have exact and equal rights as that being and should be left to their own devices and be allowed to shun their creator.

Spoony wrote on Wed, 24 March 2010 04:14

so your denomination are the "real" christians, right? (they all say that, but never mind that for now).


Depends on what you mean by that... we believe what the Bible says, and we don't associate us with those who would change it.

Spoony wrote on Wed, 24 March 2010 04:14

isn't god a bit of a prick for making his message so ludicrously cryptic that only a small proportion of the population get it right, and punishing everyone who gets it wrong?


Is it really that hard to "decrypt"? The Bible is large and full of complex verses, yes. But the very basic instruction left for us today is very simple, the five-step process. Follow that and you're set.
It also is pretty simple to understand what God says is a sin and what is not.


I cannot imagine how the clockwork of the universe can exist without a clockmaker. ~Voltaire
Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #423803 is a reply to message #423791] Fri, 26 March 2010 10:53 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Spoony is currently offline  Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator
Altzan wrote on Fri, 26 March 2010 10:08

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

"This is another counterfeiting of the Scriptures many have tried to use to shame us for what we do in his name. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" is not speaking to judging. Let me explain.

Using the KJV this time, in John 8:1 - 11 scribes and Pharisees had caught a woman in the act of adultery (the woman commonly referred to as the prostitute) and told Jesus who was teaching in the temple that the Mosaic Law required she be stoned to death. Trying to make an opportunity of this to trick Jesus that they might accuse Him, they, with stones in hand, asked Jesus what He says about the Law. After Jesus tried to ignore their repeated questioning, He told them "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." One by one each man dropped his stone and walked away.

Jesus was not arguing with the judgment. Nor was Jesus arguing the law nor the woman's guilt. Jesus was arguing with our right to execute the woman. Once all the men had dropped their stones Jesus confronted the woman and asked her if any of the men were still there to condemn her. When she answered "No man, Lord", Jesus told her that neither did He - He forgave her of her sin. He did not excuse the sin of adultery/prostitution, he forgave her of it. All behavior and thought that is sinful before forgiveness is still sinful after forgiveness. Not only was Jesus not afraid to call a sin a sin, He was not afraid to call a sinner a sinner. He even reminded her of the sin of adultery/prostitution by telling her "Go and sin no more."

The point? Jesus did not argue the act of judging the chosen behavior of the adulteress/prostitute."

i'm not seeing how this refutes my point?

the woman gets away with it because sinful people are supposedly not allowed to punish offenders. we're told we're all sinful, so what's the point the law being there if it's unenforcable?

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Wed, 24 March 2010 04:14

it's not exactly much of a jump to get from "all jews are responsible of the murder of our god" to actually doing something nasty to jews, is it?


God didn't say it, one man did. One man said that all Jews should be responsible. That doesn't translate to a Biblical command.

and yet throughout the bible we have innumerable cases of god eagerly punishing or threatening to punish innocents for the crimes of others. you've even defended that bullshit yourself.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Wed, 24 March 2010 04:14

What about it? My question was: where's the evidence supporting the account given in Genesis? So how does this support the account given in Genesis?


I wasn't providing evidence supporting Genesis, I was asking in terms of evolution.

firstly, i said: where's the evidence supporting the account given in genesis? you said the second law of thermodynamics/entropy.

so if that wasn't intended to provide evidence supporting genesis, what IS your evidence to support that version of events?

secondly, i don't give a shit whether you or anyone else is convinced by the theory of evolution or not, and i'm not aware of anyone saying "you MUST believe this or you'll suffer horrific punishments for eternity". but still, i'm not sure exactly why you think the second law of thermodynamics is supposed to be a counter-argument to the theory of evolution?

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Wed, 24 March 2010 04:14

i can't match verses to numbers off the top of my head, but i would have thought an avowed christian would at least have read the bible through.


How does that make sense? Yes, I study the Bible, but I don't know all of its contents. It would take years to effectively read and study every Bible verse.

k, then here's the one i was talking about we are. Deuteronomy 13:12-16
If you hear that in one of the towns which Yahweh your God has given you for a home, there are men, scoundrels from your own stock, who have led their fellow citizens astray, saying "Let us go and serve other gods" hitherto unknown to you, it is your duty to look into the matter, examine it, and inquire most carefully. If it is proved and confirmed that such a hateful thing has taken place among you, you must put the inhabitants of that town to the sword, you must lay it under the curse of destruction, the town and everything in it. You must pile up all its loot in the public square and burn the town and all its loot, offering it all to Yahweh your God. It is to be a ruin for all time and never rebuilt.

Another noteworthy statement along the same lines: Deuteronomy 13:7-11
If your brother, the son of your father or of your mother, or your son or daughter, or the spouse whom you embrace, or your most intimate friend, tries to secretly seduce you, saying "Let us go and serve other gods" unknown to you or your ancestors before you, gods of the peoples surrounding you, whether near you or far away, anywhere throughout the world, you must not consent, you must not listen to him, you must show him no pity, you must not spare him or conceal his guilt. No, you must kill him, your hand must strike the first blow in putting him to death and the hands of the rest of the people following. You must stone him to death, since he has tried to divert you from Yahweh your God.

Spoony wrote on Wed, 24 March 2010 04:14

for starters, you could ask god to make his "revelation" a little less ridiculous, or you could ask god not to be such a bastard that he feels the need to dish out the worst crime imaginable just for the "crime" of disbelieving in his existence or disagreeing with his religion.


There are plenty of people who think the revelation was just fine, and don't see how his commandments are ridiculous. So, why should your opinion be any more important than theirs?[/quote]
Firstly, there are not quite as many such people as you think. Christians are by no means a majority in this world, and that's even if we count all the sects who claim to be real Christians - many of whom I'm sure you think are not.

Secondly, I'm not seeing why someone else thinking that the Christian revelations were crystal clear and think there's nothing immoral about his commandments justifies the horrific punishment threatened to anyone who disagrees with them.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Wed, 24 March 2010 04:14

Quote:

Apparently you do... If you're going to say that they were spreading lies about condoms, it would be a good idea to know the intention behind the act, right?

i'm more concerned with the fact millions of people are dying.


So you only care for the act and not the motive? Isn't that an ignorant viewpoint?

Not really, the catholic church has had plenty of time up till now to defend its absurd and immoral position on contraception, and it hasn't done so.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Wed, 24 March 2010 04:14

how do you even know they said that?

once you've answered that, how do you know they were correct, as opposed to crazy or lying or just plain wrong?
once you've answered that, how do you know this wasn't the case for the rejected gospels?


1. They said it in the gospels they wrote.
2. I don't "know" that, but as you said, odds - if that many people (the writers) all claimed the same thing, they either are telling the truth or a coordinated lie.
3. I don't, since I haven't read said gospels.

1. you mean the gospel says so - not the same thing at all. how do you know that everything in there is exactly what the writers wanted to say?
2. they didn't all claim the same thing. the gospels contradict each other about almost every major event in jesus' life.
3. ah. i remember you saying you hadn't read the qur'an or hadith either. well, these all claim to be revelations from the god you believe in... don't you think you should at least read them before deciding they're not the real deal?

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Wed, 24 March 2010 04:14

it wouldn't be the first time i've made the assertion that it's plain evil to threaten someone with horrific punishment just for the "crime" of disagreeing with you or doubting what you say, would it?


No, it wouldn't be. It's your motto, I guess. By that logic, though, you shouldn't punish a child molester because he doesn't agree with the anti-pedophilia law.

Firstly, you seem to be affirming that you don't think there's anything wrong with threatening someone with horrific punishment for nothing worse than disagreeing with you.

Secondly, are you drawing a parallel between 1. disagreeing with someone, and 2. raping a child? we have laws to protect children from paedophiles because raping a child is a genuine crime with potentially severe consequences for the victim, and because basic human decency leads most of us to think vulnerable children need to be protected from predatory adults. i hardly see how this is the same situation as someone who is not convinced that a particular religion is correct or disagrees with its teachings?

Quote:

I'm referencing to actions made by the people in the Old Testament, and you keep turning it around to "Look what GOD did!"

actually a lot of my criticism of the moral evils of the old testament are reported to have been carried out by the god character himself. certainly his followers do a lot of evil things, certainly he ORDERS a lot of evil things, he also DOES a lot of evil things (ordering them can count in this column too)

And it wasn't "complaining about your religion" as you quoted me.

Quote:

I'm in favor of democracy and human rights among humans.
I'm suprised that you think that a people completely created by another being by his will alone should have exact and equal rights as that being and should be left to their own devices and be allowed to shun their creator.

you misunderstand me. i didn't say humans should have equal rights to 'god'. i don't see any reason why this 'god' should have any rights, since nobody's even managed to demonstrate that it exists at all.

secondly, i seem to recall having this argument with you before. apparently we're stuck as slaves to anyone who created us? well, what if you found out that you were created by a mad scientist in a lab, a modern-day dr. frankenstein? would that make you his slave, like it or not?

if we were to find out that the origins of life on earth was because some aliens 'seeded' the planet a few million years ago, would that mean we have to be slaves to them?

if instead you decide that you were created by your parents in the traditional way, do they rule you for your entire life?

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Wed, 24 March 2010 04:14

isn't god a bit of a prick for making his message so ludicrously cryptic that only a small proportion of the population get it right, and punishing everyone who gets it wrong?


Is it really that hard to "decrypt"?

if the only people on this planet who've gotten it right are in your particular denomination, then apparently it is.

Quote:

It also is pretty simple to understand what God says is a sin and what is not.

sure, doesn't mean we need to listen to him, considering how absolutely crap his moral standards seem to be.

but that's no surprise; he was, after all, created by bronze-age middle-eastern barbarians.


Unleash the Renerageâ„¢

Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #423805 is a reply to message #423803] Fri, 26 March 2010 10:55 Go to previous messageGo to next message
The Party is currently offline  The Party
Messages: 546
Registered: February 2009
Location: Chapel Hill, NC
Karma: 0
Colonel
HoF FTW! I feel the heat from this thread.

War is Peace.
Ignorance is Strength.
Freedom is Slavery.
Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #423832 is a reply to message #422616] Fri, 26 March 2010 13:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
_SSnipe_ is currently offline  _SSnipe_
Messages: 4121
Registered: May 2007
Location: Riverside Southern Califo...
Karma: 0
General (4 Stars)
Spoony, why does everyone one of your topics have to do with...someone cheating....flame post about someone else....or religious/homo type subjects


no disrespect it just seems like...nvm im stop now

[Updated on: Fri, 26 March 2010 13:47]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #423869 is a reply to message #423832] Fri, 26 March 2010 16:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Spoony is currently offline  Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator
maybe when religion stops trying to take over the world there won't be anything to complain about

Unleash the Renerageâ„¢

Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #423964 is a reply to message #423869] Sat, 27 March 2010 10:13 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Spoony is currently offline  Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator
quick audio summary from pat of everything i've been saying about the catholic church
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKg4HLsu5gE&feature=sub

admittedly i'd have mentioned its persecution of homosexuality too but meh


Unleash the Renerageâ„¢

Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #424018 is a reply to message #423964] Sun, 28 March 2010 02:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
snpr1101 is currently offline  snpr1101
Messages: 425
Registered: June 2007
Location: Australia
Karma: 0
Commander
Spoony wrote on Sat, 27 March 2010 11:13

quick audio summary from pat of everything i've been saying about the catholic church
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKg4HLsu5gE&feature=sub

admittedly i'd have mentioned its persecution of homosexuality too but meh


I thought you were the old man in the vid for a moment.
Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #424094 is a reply to message #423803] Sun, 28 March 2010 18:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Altzan is currently offline  Altzan
Messages: 1586
Registered: September 2008
Location: Tennessee
Karma: 0
General (1 Star)
Spoony wrote on Fri, 26 March 2010 11:53

i'm not seeing how this refutes my point?
the woman gets away with it because sinful people are supposedly not allowed to punish offenders. we're told we're all sinful, so what's the point the law being there if it's unenforcable?


Perhaps I wasn't trying to refute it?

Spoony wrote on Fri, 26 March 2010 11:53

and yet throughout the bible we have innumerable cases of god eagerly punishing or threatening to punish innocents for the crimes of others. you've even defended that bullshit yourself.


That doesn't change the fact that the Bible doesn't command us to persecute Jews.

Spoony wrote on Fri, 26 March 2010 11:53

firstly, i said: where's the evidence supporting the account given in genesis? you said the second law of thermodynamics/entropy.


When I said those two examples, I was NOT giving them as evidence to Genesis, I was bringing it up against evolution, as I already said.

Spoony wrote on Fri, 26 March 2010 11:53

secondly, i don't give a shit whether you or anyone else is convinced by the theory of evolution or not, and i'm not aware of anyone saying "you MUST believe this or you'll suffer horrific punishments for eternity". but still, i'm not sure exactly why you think the second law of thermodynamics is supposed to be a counter-argument to the theory of evolution?


So you want me to provide evidence and attempt to vindicate Genesis, but you don't think I should make any move against evolution? One-sided, no?

Spoony wrote on Fri, 26 March 2010 11:53

k, then here's the one i was talking about we are. Deuteronomy 13:12-16
If thou shalt hear [say] in one of thy cities, which the LORD thy God hath given thee to dwell there, saying,
[Certain] men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known;
Then shalt thou enquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, [if it be] truth, [and] the thing certain, [that] such abomination is wrought among you;
Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that [is] therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword.
And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof every whit, for the LORD thy God: and it shall be an heap for ever; it shall not be built again.



I took the liberty of changing your quoted verses to KJV.
Now here's Matthew Henry's commentary which should hopefully answer any question you have provided you read it carefully.

Toggle Spoiler


Spoony wrote on Fri, 26 March 2010 11:53

Another noteworthy statement along the same lines: Deuteronomy 13:7-11
[Namely], of the gods of the people which [are] round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the [one] end of the earth even unto the [other] end of the earth;
Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:
But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.
And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you.



Same as above, here:

Toggle Spoiler


Spoony wrote on Fri, 26 March 2010 11:53

I'm not seeing why someone else thinking that the Christian revelations were crystal clear and think there's nothing immoral about his commandments justifies the horrific punishment threatened to anyone who disagrees with them.


It doesn't justify, sure, but I'm trying to point out a different opinion since yours is the prominent one here.

Spoony wrote on Fri, 26 March 2010 11:53

Not really, the catholic church has had plenty of time up till now to defend its absurd and immoral position on contraception, and it hasn't done so.


If the people who physically did those things were still alove and were asked the question, I'm sure they'd answer... but they're not around today, are they?

Spoony wrote on Fri, 26 March 2010 11:53

1. you mean the gospel says so - not the same thing at all. how do you know that everything in there is exactly what the writers wanted to say?
2. they didn't all claim the same thing. the gospels contradict each other about almost every major event in jesus' life.
3. ah. i remember you saying you hadn't read the qur'an or hadith either. well, these all claim to be revelations from the god you believe in... don't you think you should at least read them before deciding they're not the real deal?


1. "How do you know" again? Same answer - I don't. How do you know they weren't? You don't. Simple answer - we don't know.

Spoony wrote on Fri, 26 March 2010 11:53

Firstly, you seem to be affirming that you don't think there's anything wrong with threatening someone with horrific punishment for nothing worse than disagreeing with you.


The played-down part here is "disagreeing with you" - it's a lot more than that, you know.

Spoony wrote on Fri, 26 March 2010 11:53

Secondly, are you drawing a parallel between 1. disagreeing with someone, and 2. raping a child? we have laws to protect children from paedophiles because raping a child is a genuine crime with potentially severe consequences for the victim, and because basic human decency leads most of us to think vulnerable children need to be protected from predatory adults. i hardly see how this is the same situation as someone who is not convinced that a particular religion is correct or disagrees with its teachings?


I could use ANY exmple here if I wanted. I'm not talking about the act in particular. Let's change it to whatever law then - the lawbreaker disagrees with the law at hand, and doesn't think it's a proper law and should not be enforced. Should we punish him anyway, or should we let him be, since it isn't fair that we punish him for breaking a law he doesn't think is fair or right?

Spoony wrote on Fri, 26 March 2010 11:53

Quote:

I'm referencing to actions made by the people in the Old Testament, and you keep turning it around to "Look what GOD did!"

actually a lot of my criticism of the moral evils of the old testament are reported to have been carried out by the god character himself. certainly his followers do a lot of evil things, certainly he ORDERS a lot of evil things, he also DOES a lot of evil things (ordering them can count in this column too)


That's what I said, yeah. You refer to what GOD did, when I was referring to something else.

Spoony wrote on Fri, 26 March 2010 11:53

you misunderstand me. i didn't say humans should have equal rights to 'god'. i don't see any reason why this 'god' should have any rights, since nobody's even managed to demonstrate that it exists at all.


Stop dragging the hypothetical situation to the real world - IF God did exist (IF), should we have equal rights to him?

Spoony wrote on Fri, 26 March 2010 11:53

secondly, i seem to recall having this argument with you before. apparently we're stuck as slaves to anyone who created us? well, what if you found out that you were created by a mad scientist in a lab, a modern-day dr. frankenstein? would that make you his slave, like it or not?


That's a completely different situation, eh? Mad scientists would have to work with inventions and materials around him, not create everything out of nothing with pure will.

Also, if we were made by a mad scientist, we'd be wherever he was (unless he was completely alone in the universe) and would be subject to his existence as well, so...

Spoony wrote on Fri, 26 March 2010 11:53

if we were to find out that the origins of life on earth was because some aliens 'seeded' the planet a few million years ago, would that mean we have to be slaves to them?


Again, completely different scenario.

Spoony wrote on Fri, 26 March 2010 11:53

if instead you decide that you were created by your parents in the traditional way, do they rule you for your entire life?


'The traditional way'?

Spoony wrote on Fri, 26 March 2010 11:53

if the only people on this planet who've gotten it right are in your particular denomination, then apparently it is.


Again, we're not. But some (or a lot) groups have changed the scripture to suit themselves. And as the Bible says, let no man add or take away from what is written.

Spoony wrote on Fri, 26 March 2010 11:53

Quote:

It also is pretty simple to understand what God says is a sin and what is not.

sure, doesn't mean we need to listen to him, considering how absolutely crap his moral standards seem to be.
but that's no surprise; he was, after all, created by bronze-age middle-eastern barbarians.


But they're simple, as you just affirmed. Not cryptic at all.


I cannot imagine how the clockwork of the universe can exist without a clockmaker. ~Voltaire
Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #424114 is a reply to message #424094] Mon, 29 March 2010 01:41 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Spoony is currently offline  Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator
Altzan wrote on Sun, 28 March 2010 19:16

Perhaps I wasn't trying to refute it?

*shrug* then i guess my earlier statement about the overall stupidity of the story can be allowed to stand

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Fri, 26 March 2010 11:53

and yet throughout the bible we have innumerable cases of god eagerly punishing or threatening to punish innocents for the crimes of others. you've even defended that bullshit yourself.


That doesn't change the fact that the Bible doesn't command us to persecute Jews.

well, it would be nice if all the christian authorities had said this for the last two thousand years, instead of specifically encouraging the persecution of jews, culminating in the holocaust. and if you're going to take the line that statements of "faith" don't have to be proven, then this is only a problem for your side.

Quote:

When I said those two examples, I was NOT giving them as evidence to Genesis, I was bringing it up against evolution, as I already said.

So you want me to provide evidence and attempt to vindicate Genesis, but you don't think I should make any move against evolution? One-sided, no?

firstly, i never said you shouldn't try to refute the theory of evolution. no real scientist would say that, and i'm not even a scientist. evolution is a scientific theory, and since it's scientific it's open to challenges. if the best you can do is mentioning the second law of thermodynamics, then ok. i can't imagine why that's supposed to be a rebuttal to the theory of evolution, so perhaps you can explain that for us.

secondly, yes i do want you to prove the account as reported in genesis.

thirdly, i'll just repeat my earlier assertion that i don't really care whether you find the theory of evolution convincing or not, and if i ever came across anybody saying that if you don't believe their scientific theory then their boss will inflict horrific punishment upon you for your disbelief! then i'd be the first to say what a deranged and immoral pronouncement that would be.

even more so if they never put forth any decent evidence for it in the first place.

Quote:

I took the liberty of changing your quoted verses to KJV.
Now here's Matthew Henry's commentary which should hopefully answer any question you have provided you read it carefully.

i have a feeling it's going to raise more questions than it answers, but i'll give it a shot.

Quote:

"Here the case is put of a city revolting from its allegiance to the God of Israel, and serving other gods.

I. The crime is supposed to be committed

oh dear. already i've got to stop you. i don't accept that a crime has been committed here.

Quote:

The crime is supposed to be committed, 1. By one of the cities of Israel, that lay within the jurisdiction of their courts.

Ah. I think I see what he's getting at here; it only applies to the Israelites, does it? In that case, then the verse would be totally irrelevant in a modern context. That would certainly be no problem for me; it would only be a problem for anybody who dared to say that God gave them this planet, their property etc.

But quite a lot of Christians do say that, don't they?

Quote:

The church then judged those only that were within, 1 Co. 5:12, 13. And, even when they were ordered to preserve their religion in the first principles of it by fire and sword to propagate it.

fun fun fun!

Quote:

Those that are born within the allegiance of a prince, if they take up arms against him, are dealt with as traitors, but foreign invaders are not so.

We're back to my earlier criticism of dictatorship.

I do accept that someone who "takes up arms against" a cause they have freely chosen to swear allegiance to is considered a traitor. But there are three problems in this case.
1. The choice to swear allegiance to your god is not free. I've never heard a serious attempt to make the case that it is, either from the barbarism of the Bible or from modern-day Christians who say we're free to believe what we like but we'll go to hell for believing the wrong thing.
2. "Born within the allegiance" negates the concept of a choice at all.
3. I don't accept that simply not worshipping the god and having a different religious viewpoint constitutes "taking up arms against"

Quote:

The city that is here supposed to have become idolatrous is one that formerly worshipped the true God, but had now withdrawn to other gods, which intimates how great the crime is

...no, no it doesn't.

Although, "other gods"... do you think there are (or were) any other gods?

Quote:

It is supposed to be committed by the generality of the inhabitants of the city, for we may conclude that, if a considerable number did retain their integrity, those only that were guilty were to be destroyed, and the city was to be spared for the sake of the righteous in it; for will not the Judge of all the earth do right? No doubt he will.

firstly, there's nothing in the original commandment saying "this punishment is only to be carried out if they're all guilty", nor "innocent bystanders will be spared", and it's rather dishonest to suggest that there is, but then i've never come across any theology that wasn't at some stage based on dishonesty.

secondly it's worth noting that the author seems to realise that if god did do this, if he did flatten a city including innocent bystanders just because some other people in the city did something bad (not that i accept that having a different religious opinion is a crime), god would be morally wrong to do it.

Quote:

They are supposed to be drawn to idolatry by certain men, the children of Belial, men that would endure no yoke (so it signifies), that neither fear God nor regard man, but shake off all restraints of law and conscience, and are perfectly lost to all manner of virtue; these are those that say, "Let us serve other gods,''

He really has lost me here. Why would serving a different god mean someone has no desire to be bound by laws, or any "manner of virtue"? They're just picking a different set, aren't they?

Secondly, are non-theists thrown into the same category, I wonder?

Quote:

The cause is ordered to be tried with a great deal of care (v. 14): Thou shalt enquire and make search. They must not proceed upon common fame, or take the information by hearsay, but must examine the proofs, and not give judgment against them unless the evidence was clear and the charge fully made out. God himself, before he destroyed Sodom, is said to have come down to see whether its crimes were according to the clamour, Gen. 18:21. In judicial processes it is requisite that time, and care, and pains, be taken to find out the truth, and that search be made without any passion, prejudice, or partiality. The Jewish writers say that, though particular persons who were idolaters might be judged by the inferior courts, the defection of a city was to be tried by the great Sanhedrim; and, if it appeared that they were thrust away to idolatry, two learned men were sent to them to admonish and reclaim them. If they repented, all would be well; if not, then all Israel must go up to war against them, to testify their indignation against idolatry and to stop the spreading of the contagion.

this part of the commentary is uncharacteristically honest. yes, the original commandment does make it clear that it is to be painstakingly investigated.

Quote:

III. If the crime were proved, and the criminals were incorrigible, the city was to be wholly destroyed. If there were a few righteous men in it, no doubt they would remove themselves and their families out of such a dangerous place

Ah.

So it's ok to flatten an entire city if some of its inhabitants commit a crime, because anyone who was innocent would "no doubt" have already left.

Quote:

and then all the inhabitants, men, women, and children, must be put to the sword (v. 15)

I'm going to emphasise a part of this quote, and then I'll throw it out here and we'll see whether you have anything to say about it.

"Children must be put to the sword."

Quote:

all the spoil of the city, both shop-goods and the furniture of houses, must be brought into the marketplace and burned, and the city itself must be laid in ashes and never built again, v. 16. The soldiers are forbidden, upon pain of death, to convert any of the plunder to their own use, v. 17. It was a devoted thing, and dangerous to meddle with, as we find in the case of Achan.

well, i think the real crime here is the slaughter of the city's inhabitants, not the ensuing destruction of property.

Quote:

Now, 1. God enjoins this severity of show what a jealous God he is in the matters of his worship, and how great a crime it is to serve other gods.

firstly, he hasn't successfully made the case that serving another god is a crime.

secondly, even if he did make that case, this wouldn't make it morally acceptable to punish innocents if someone else was guilty.

thirdly, see my earlier question. are there other gods...?

Quote:

Let men know that God will not give his glory to another, nor his praise to graven images. 2. He expects that magistrates, having their honour and power from him, should be concerned for his honour, and use their power for terror to evil doers, else they bear the sword in vain.

And does he still expect that?

Quote:

The faithful worshippers of the true God must take all occasions to show their just indignation against idolatry, much more against atheism, infidelity, and irreligion.

Ah, so that means someone who does not take all occasions to show their just indignation against atheism and idolatry is not a faithful worshipper of the true God?

Quote:

It is here intimated that the best expedient for the turning away of God's anger from a land is to execute justice upon the wicked of the land (v. 17), that the Lord may turn from the fierceness of his anger, which was ready to break out against the whole nation, for the wickedness of that one apostate city.

Here we have another example of what we noticed earlier. Earlier we noticed that the author seems to realise that if god really did flatten a city for the crimes of a few of its inhabitants, it would be an immoral thing for god to do.

Now we're seeing that again. What a good thing that God's people are laying waste to this city, he says, because otherwise God was going to destroy the entire country just for what one city did!

Quote:

It is promised that, if they would thus root wickedness out of their land, God would multiply them. They might think it impolitic, and against the interest of their nation, to ruin a whole city for a crime relating purely to religion, and that they should be more sparing of the blood of Israelites: "Fear not the'' (says Moses), "God will multiply you the more; the body of your nation will lose nothing by the letting out of this corrupt blood.''

Here we have it again! The author is recognising that some people might have had a problem with this commandment!

Unfortunately, even though that's a good starting point, he totally fucks it all up by saying "even if you think this is morally wrong, you should do it anyway because there's something in it for you". Oh dear.

Quote:

Lastly, Though we do not find this law put in execution in all the history of the Jewish church (Gibeah was destroyed, not for idolatry, but immorality)

I wasn't sure what was originally meant by Gibeah, so I looked that up. I do recognise the story, though not as 'Gibeah'. The one about the baying mob who want to rape the male visitor, and the decision by the men to throw the young women to the mob to save themselves. So the visitor's woman gets raped to death. That one. It's similar to the Lot story, isn't it? The similarity of the narrative, the almost identical speech reported, and the fact that modern Christians seem to draw some really odd moral lessons from it, i.e. homosexuality is evil, but if you find yourself faced by a mob of rapists, just throw a defenceless young girl at them and save yourself.

Quote:

yet for the neglect of the execution of it upon the inferior cities that served idols God himself, by the army of the Chaldeans, put it in execution upon Jerusalem, the head city, which, for is apostasy from God, was utterly destroyed and laid waste, and lay in ruins seventy years.

What's he saying here?

Quote:

Though idolaters may escape punishment from men (nor is this law in the letter of it binding now, under the gospel), yet the Lord our God will not suffer them to escape his righteous judgements. The New Testament speaks of communion with idolaters as a sin which, above any other, provokes the Lord to jealousy, and dares him as if we were stronger than he, 1 Co. 10:21, 22."

This is quite an odd kettle of fish, isn't it?

So, idolatry, serving other gods etc, they're things which absolutely infuriate God. Yes, the old testament makes that clear... and it doesn't exactly work in his favour. There are plenty of evil actions he either doesn't mind or positively recommends - slavery, for example - but if you have a different religious opinion, you'd better watch out.

So there must be a law against this "crime" in the Old Testament. But as he says here, in the New Testament, the law is not binding anymore, but it still infuriates God and he'll still punish people who do it? So why repeal the law?

Quote:

"Further provision is made by this branch of the statute against receiving the infection of idolatry from those that are near and dear to us.

I. It is the policy of the tempter to send his solicitations by the hand of those whom we love, whom we least suspect of any ill design upon us, and whom we are desirous to please and apt to conform ourselves to. The enticement here is supposed to come from a brother or child that are near by nature, from a wife or friend that are near by choice, and are to us as our own souls, v. 6. Satan tempted Adam by Eve and Christ by Peter. We are therefore concerned to stand upon our guard against a bad proposal when the person that makes it can pretend to an interest in us, that we many never sin against God in compliment to the best friend we have in the world. The temptation is supposed to be private: he will entice thee secretly, implying that idolatry is a work of darkness, which dreads the light and covets to be concealed, and in which the sinner promises himself, and the tempter promises him, secrecy and security.

This all assumes that the person doing the "tempting" has evil intentions... what if they're just someone like you, evangelising? Someone who genuinely believes in their God, and wants to spread the good news?

as an aside, do you really believe that the snake in the garden was Satan?

Quote:

Concerning the false gods proposed to be served

Define "false god", please.

Quote:

1. The tempter suggests that the worshipping of these gods was the common practice of the world; and, if they limited their adorations to an invisible Deity, they were singular, and like nobody, for these gods were the gods of the people round about them, and indeed of all the nations of the earth, v. 7.

makes sense to ask why worship something intangible.

Quote:

This suggestion draws many away from religion and godliness, that it is an unfashionable thing

so far so good

Quote:

and they make their court to the world and the flesh because these are the gods of the people that are round about them.

??

Quote:

Moses suggests, in opposition to this, that it had not been the practice of their ancestors; they are gods which thou hast not known, thou nor thy fathers. Those that are born of godly parents, and have been educated in pious exercises, when they are enticed to a vain, loose, careless way of living should remember that those are ways which they have not known, they nor their fathers. And will they thus degenerate?

Ask the Jews who rejected the message of Jesus.

Quote:

II. It is our duty to prefer God and religion before the best friends we have in the world.

Including your children?

What would be your response to the Abraham test, do you think?

Quote:

We must not, in complaisance to our friends, break God's law (v. 8): "Thou shalt not consent to him. nor go with him to his idolatrous worship, no, not for company, or curiosity, or to gain a better interest in is affections.'' It is a general rule, If sinners entice thee, consent thou not, Prov. 1:10. 2. We must not, in compassion to our friends, obstruct the course of God's justice.

Again, the author is recognising that people might, unbelievably, have a problem with this commandment. Their compassion might get in the way. I certainly hope so. I wonder why I've never heard a Christian say that compassion was a work of Satan.

Quote:

He that attempts such a thing must not only be looked upon as an enemy, or dangerous person, whom one should be afraid of, and swear the peace against, but as a criminal or traitor, whom, in zeal for our sovereign Lord, his crown and dignity, we are bound to inform against, and cannot conceal without incurring the guilt of a great misprision (v. 9): Thou shalt surely kill him. By this law the persons enticed were bound to the seducer, and to give evidence against him before the proper judges, that he might suffer the penalty of the law, and that without delay, which the Jews say is here intended in that phrase, as it is in the Hebrew, killing thou shalt kill him. Neither the prosecution nor the execution must be deferred; and he that was first in the former must be first in the latter, to show that he stood to his testimony: "Thy hand shall be first upon him, to mark him out as an anathema, and then the hands of all the people, to put him away as an accursed thing.'' The death he must die was that which was looked upon among the Jews as the severest of all deaths. He must be stoned: and his accusation written is that he has sought to thrust thee away, by a kind of violence, from the Lord they God, v. 10.

still hasn't explained where the crime is here

Quote:

Those are certainly our worst enemies that would thrust us from God, our best friend; and whatever draws us to sin, separates between us and God, is a design upon our life, and to be resented accordingly

see above re: intentions not necessarily evil.

Suppose I said the following.

You, Altzan, are certainly my worst enemy that would thrust me from reason, my best friend. Whatever draws me to religion, separates between myself and my reason, is a design upon my mind, to be resented accordingly.

It's not actually so far from the truth, although I wouldn't say this would justify me killing you for trying.

Quote:

And, lastly, here is the good effect of this necessary execution (v. 11): All Israel shall hear and fear. They ought to hear and fear; for the punishment of crimes committed is designed in terrorem—to terrify, and so to prevent their repetition. And it is to be hoped they will hear and fear, and by the severity of the punishment, especially when it is at the prosecution of a father, a brother, or a friend, will be made to conceive a horror of the sin, as exceedingly sinful, and to be afraid of incurring the like punishment themselves. Smite the scorner that sins presumptuously, and the simple, that is in danger of sinning carelessly, will beware."

Well, yes, if you carry out the most horrific of punishments for some "crime", people probably will avoid doing it. That doesn't mean the punishment is just, or that the "crime" is a crime at all.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Fri, 26 March 2010 11:53

I'm not seeing why someone else thinking that the Christian revelations were crystal clear and think there's nothing immoral about his commandments justifies the horrific punishment threatened to anyone who disagrees with them.


It doesn't justify, sure, but I'm trying to point out a different opinion since yours is the prominent one here.

k, but the other opinion is crap, isn't it?

saying the christian revelation is crystal clear is plainly absurd; if it is, what's the need for 'faith'?

as for thinking there's nothing immoral about his commandments... well, you can even see some objections in matthew henry's commentary if you look closely.

Quote:

If the people who physically did those things were still alove and were asked the question, I'm sure they'd answer... but they're not around today, are they?

the catholic church is still spreading its evil doctrine against contraception even now.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Fri, 26 March 2010 11:53

1. you mean the gospel says so - not the same thing at all. how do you know that everything in there is exactly what the writers wanted to say?
2. they didn't all claim the same thing. the gospels contradict each other about almost every major event in jesus' life.
3. ah. i remember you saying you hadn't read the qur'an or hadith either. well, these all claim to be revelations from the god you believe in... don't you think you should at least read them before deciding they're not the real deal?


1. "How do you know" again? Same answer - I don't.

Simple answer - we don't know.

I will give you credit where credit is due. I think this is the most honest and reasonable thing I've seen you say in these religious debates.

It goes a bit wrong from there, though... you ask me how do I know they weren't inspired by god. well, i've been waiting for quite some time for anybody to explain what they even mean by god, and prove his existence, and demonstrate that he's worth listening to.

Once they've done that, then I'll be sure to give due consideration to whether a book claiming to be inspired by him actually is. Otherwise I don't really see the point.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Fri, 26 March 2010 11:53

Firstly, you seem to be affirming that you don't think there's anything wrong with threatening someone with horrific punishment for nothing worse than disagreeing with you.


The played-down part here is "disagreeing with you" - it's a lot more than that, you know.

Go on.

Quote:

I could use ANY exmple here if I wanted. I'm not talking about the act in particular. Let's change it to whatever law then - the lawbreaker disagrees with the law at hand, and doesn't think it's a proper law and should not be enforced. Should we punish him anyway, or should we let him be, since it isn't fair that we punish him for breaking a law he doesn't think is fair or right?

The contents of the bible aren't laws at all; nobody's ever demonstrated that they come from any position of authority.

That's the legal side. On to the moral side. What if the majority thinks the law is wrong? Can it be changed democratically?

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Fri, 26 March 2010 11:53

you misunderstand me. i didn't say humans should have equal rights to 'god'. i don't see any reason why this 'god' should have any rights, since nobody's even managed to demonstrate that it exists at all.


Stop dragging the hypothetical situation to the real world - IF God did exist (IF), should we have equal rights to him?

No. If God did exist and the biblical account of his deeds are true, he should not have equal rights to us. Not after his trial, anyway.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Fri, 26 March 2010 11:53

secondly, i seem to recall having this argument with you before. apparently we're stuck as slaves to anyone who created us? well, what if you found out that you were created by a mad scientist in a lab, a modern-day dr. frankenstein? would that make you his slave, like it or not?


That's a completely different situation, eh? Mad scientists would have to work with inventions and materials around him, not create everything out of nothing with pure will.

Firstly, how do you know how God supposedly made everything?

Secondly, why is this an important difference? If God creates stuff out of nothing through pure will, he's just using the tools and abilities available to him. What's the difference?

Quote:

Also, if we were made by a mad scientist, we'd be wherever he was (unless he was completely alone in the universe) and would be subject to his existence as well, so...

you've lost me there.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Fri, 26 March 2010 11:53

if we were to find out that the origins of life on earth was because some aliens 'seeded' the planet a few million years ago, would that mean we have to be slaves to them?


Again, completely different scenario.

the only differences i see is that i find the aliens scenario a little easier to believe, and that nobody's telling me i must believe it and act accordingly.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Fri, 26 March 2010 11:53

if instead you decide that you were created by your parents in the traditional way, do they rule you for your entire life?


'The traditional way'?

having sex.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Fri, 26 March 2010 11:53

if the only people on this planet who've gotten it right are in your particular denomination, then apparently it is.


Again, we're not. But some (or a lot) groups have changed the scripture to suit themselves. And as the Bible says, let no man add or take away from what is written.

Matthew Henry added quite a bit, and that was only to two brief statements.

Secondly, what do you think will happen to the other kinds of Christian after they die? i.e. everyone outside your denomination who says they're a Christian but, in your church's view, are mistaken.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Fri, 26 March 2010 11:53

Quote:

It also is pretty simple to understand what God says is a sin and what is not.

sure, doesn't mean we need to listen to him, considering how absolutely crap his moral standards seem to be.
but that's no surprise; he was, after all, created by bronze-age middle-eastern barbarians.


But they're simple, as you just affirmed. Not cryptic at all.

firstly you don't seem to be challenging my statement that his moral standards are absolutely shit.
secondly it really is cryptic, or at least too cryptic for humans, otherwise the vast majority of the world wouldn't have a problem with it.


Unleash the Renerageâ„¢

Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #424186 is a reply to message #424114] Mon, 29 March 2010 18:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
HaTe is currently offline  HaTe
Messages: 923
Registered: August 2007
Karma: 0
Colonel
Science>Religion
Proof>Belief
Seeing>Wondering
Knowing>Assuming

Not even going to read the whole topic, but that is my general opinion. I'd rather have actual proof, without having to be convinced and dragged into, rather than assumptions and, what appear to me - are false hopes. I'm not one to judge anyone by their religion, but i do feel as if they may not be aware of some of the actual facts out there....like the fact that there has been, what, hundreds of different religions before us, all believing 100% that THEIR religion, and their gods were what was real. Then every other religion comes and says they are wrong, and that the religion they believe in is right....when there is yet to be facts about any of this. Seems like it's more culture and tradition to believe in one defined religion now-a-days anyway....or just the fear that when you die, you will not be taken care of, or go to hell, if you do not believe. I'd rather not get my hopes about something that appears to me as proven to be false more than true to this point. Tradition, culture, and fear aren't really something i would be willing to trust my life to.....even science would be better.


http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t263/psuHaTe32_2007/HaTe3.jpg
‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’ - Edmund Burke
Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #424208 is a reply to message #424186] Mon, 29 March 2010 23:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
snpr1101 is currently offline  snpr1101
Messages: 425
Registered: June 2007
Location: Australia
Karma: 0
Commander
HaTe wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 19:46

Science>Religion
Proof>Belief
Seeing>Wondering
Knowing>Assuming

Not even going to read the whole topic, but that is my general opinion. I'd rather have actual proof, without having to be convinced and dragged into, rather than assumptions and, what appear to me - are false hopes. I'm not one to judge anyone by their religion, but i do feel as if they may not be aware of some of the actual facts out there....like the fact that there has been, what, hundreds of different religions before us, all believing 100% that THEIR religion, and their gods were what was real. Then every other religion comes and says they are wrong, and that the religion they believe in is right....when there is yet to be facts about any of this. Seems like it's more culture and tradition to believe in one defined religion now-a-days anyway....or just the fear that when you die, you will not be taken care of, or go to hell, if you do not believe. I'd rather not get my hopes about something that appears to me as proven to be false more than true to this point. Tradition, culture, and fear aren't really something i would be willing to trust my life to.....even science would be better.


Yea but what does science offer you after you die - a nice little story about the decomposition of your body.

What does religion (generally) offer? - A nice little story about living in an unimaginable paradise if you're a good little boy or girl for eternity.

Not hard to see why so many people would rather believe in religion, as science promises nothing except knowledge for present use. After you die, what good is it to you?

I know what i'd want after I died, yet reality drags the wishful mind back into the real world; and the facts are daunting.
Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #424219 is a reply to message #424208] Tue, 30 March 2010 07:34 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Spoony is currently offline  Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator
snpr1101 wrote on Tue, 30 March 2010 00:47

HaTe wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 19:46

Science>Religion
Proof>Belief
Seeing>Wondering
Knowing>Assuming

Not even going to read the whole topic, but that is my general opinion. I'd rather have actual proof, without having to be convinced and dragged into, rather than assumptions and, what appear to me - are false hopes. I'm not one to judge anyone by their religion, but i do feel as if they may not be aware of some of the actual facts out there....like the fact that there has been, what, hundreds of different religions before us, all believing 100% that THEIR religion, and their gods were what was real. Then every other religion comes and says they are wrong, and that the religion they believe in is right....when there is yet to be facts about any of this. Seems like it's more culture and tradition to believe in one defined religion now-a-days anyway....or just the fear that when you die, you will not be taken care of, or go to hell, if you do not believe. I'd rather not get my hopes about something that appears to me as proven to be false more than true to this point. Tradition, culture, and fear aren't really something i would be willing to trust my life to.....even science would be better.


Yea but what does science offer you after you die - a nice little story about the decomposition of your body.

What does religion (generally) offer? - A nice little story about living in an unimaginable paradise if you're a good little boy or girl for eternity.

Not hard to see why so many people would rather believe in religion, as science promises nothing except knowledge for present use. After you die, what good is it to you?

I know what i'd want after I died, yet reality drags the wishful mind back into the real world; and the facts are daunting.

let's not understate of the benefits of science. presumably neither you nor anyone close to you has ever had a potentially life-threatening illness, for example. what use is religion in the field of medicine? according to the holy books, plagues and other natural disasters usually happen because god is punishing someone. that'd be a real help if you had cancer, wouldn't it? "sorry we can't do a damn thing to help you, and what's more, it's your fault anyway"

and as for "after you die, what good is it to you"? well, after you die, what more do you need? nobody's ever given a convincing reason to think that there is life after death.

on to the promises of paradise.
firstly, would you rather be told the unwelcome truth or a comforting lie? seems you'd rather be told what you'd find more comforting, regardless of how much truth there is to it.

secondly, many religions say that the way to paradise is more to do with believing the right thing than it is to do with your actions.
thirdly, many religions' rules - some of them, at least - are pretty shitty. to take the most obvious example, the 72-virgins business.
here's what you said:
"What does religion (generally) offer? - A nice little story about living in an unimaginable paradise if you're a good little boy or girl for eternity."
well, islam offers a paradise if you die in battle, and islam also says that non-muslims are the perpetual enemy. look at the results.


Unleash the Renerageâ„¢

Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #424241 is a reply to message #424186] Tue, 30 March 2010 13:20 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Starbuzzz
Messages: 1637
Registered: June 2008
Karma: 0
General (1 Star)
The christian argument is so weak that only "misinformed" people who fell prey to its "intellectual dishonesty" would even think of upholding and defending the religion. And of course, the majority of christians today are christians because they were raised in a christian home and therefore indoctrinated and thereby lacking the "intellectual bargaining power" to deal with their brainwashing.

I want to say something about being "misinformed" and "intellectual dishonesty" and the "intellectual bargaining power". These are the roots of the religious question imo.

btw, I am basically talking about myself and my experience here:

The first one of being misinformed starts at birth. A christian child is going to be told that Adam was the first human being and that everything began with a "Let there be light" command. For example, the child is not going to told that early humans in those ancient tribal groups first hunted, then foraged, then later grew their own crops in their search for food. The child is not going to be told about exciting things such as continental drift or the science behind earthquakes ("its god's judgment" I heard). If you were in a religious family and you were told this, count yourself very lucky.

So moving on, a whole false history of our origin is impressed upon the child while real history and science is ignored. I want to stress here that COMMONSENSE is ignored and dogma is upheld. But children are not easily fooled; fresh off the human production line, they have sharp senses, fresh memory, and a keen sense of curiosity. They begin to ask questions that makes the adults around them look like idiots.

For example, in my case when I was kid, I always wondered about the concept of the soul. This was an actual conversation I remember very clearly sometime in the early 90's when I was around 8 years old.

Marc: what is the soul grandma?
Grandma: its a spirit inside us (how the fuck did she know?)
Marc: does everyrone have them?
Grandma: yes, dear
Marc: do animals have souls? wow birds! do birds have souls?
Grandma: no they don't
Marc: how do you know they don't grandma
Grandma: ...

I got a stunned silence on that one. I also had other questions like why grandpa and grandma go to the doctor all the time and take 5 different tablets each night when they could pray and get healed cheaply.

This leads me to the next part: intellectual dishonesty. EVERY religious parent have been intellectually dishonest to their children...no exceptions. To be fair, I understand that the blind cannot lead and parents are only going to indoctrinate the kids based on what they themselves were indoctrinated with. But still, we see how this is a huge problem; instead of admitting that she has no idea what the soul is and whether it is even real or not, a silence is maintained or some change-the-subject bs answer is given.

And how do the religious counter this awesome force of curiosity and yearning to learn from their children? Prepare to be disgusted: by teaching them about their god and their hell. This is the part religious folks in debates and arguments get wrong: you can be born into any religion and you are taught only that religion. Just look how asinine it is to claim your religion is the right one then!

So moving on, oh yes, there is a reason they have 2 seperate services for adults and children. The adults brainwashing is reinforced in the sunday worship service while the children are freshly brainwashed in the sunday school simultaneously. Nice.

The idea of hell is introduced to children here. In my case in India, a very horrifc movie about hell was shown to us. Remember we were cute little children who should be taken to stargazing trips but here we were FUCKING SCARED SHITLESS. (The short fictional movie was about a good christian and an "immoral businessman" in a 747 jumbo jet going to Australia; the plane crashes into the Indian ocean and while white constumed angels descend and take away the good man, red costumed demons grab and chain/shackle the businessman and drag him into a black hole in a red cardboard wall...smoke effects and screams and all.) Religious folks love this type of judgmental violence to fall upon "sinners."

Along with that, biblical teaching is upheld, bible verses are made to be memorized, and there are short biblical plays and such in sunday school.

So the child at this point is basically a christian drone; his internal hard disks filled with obscene religious bullshit with a religious OS installed. The young mind is corrupted at this point dangerously past the point of no return. The doctrine is firmly rooted in, i.e. "God is real, Adam is the first man to walk the earth, hell is real" among many other beliefs. Sadly, this is game over for many children. A vast majority of them never recover from this brainwashing because, surrounded by other drones, no one is able to talk sense to them as they automatically reject anything that is contrary to their doctrine. With their worldview defined thru the teaching of their religions, they are stuck for the rest of their lives. It took me 3 whole years to come out and jettison this shit off my mind (the last 2 years were basically dealing with hell fear...am glad it is a piss in the wind!)

Therefore, they lack intellectual bargaining power and repeat the same dogshit over and over. This is where atheists trump em all the time because religious folks never think about the world objectively. They never connect the dots, they never read a REAL history book...for example, they never really give a shit about why there is a molten core in the center of the earth. "Who cares!" they say, "god is going to wipe out this earth on judgment day...he is going to blow it all away!"...atleast that's what the 68 year old pastor told in the church sermon 2 days ago.

The religious mind, since it was only given a very carefully selected portion of false history, gets easily overwhelmed and frustrated and even angry when it encounters anything that is even slightly different; even if it is from someone from another religion who themselves have been given a dose of yet another set of false history. This is the absolute root of why religious folks claim their religion is the right one and are so sure of it.

Ask a muslim and he will tell you "Islam is the best religion" with a happy beautiful self-content smile (this actually happened with one muslim guy I talked and he did respond that way). So confident and so sure of it! Applies to every religious group. If you have not talked to someone from another religion, you should do so.

When I used to live in India, a particular Hindu family next door were best friends. Now these folks were more honest, more helpful, and friendly than any christian I ever known. A few months back during a discussion, my religious nut dad admitted something most christians don't really have the balls to: he was saying how that family, no matter how awesome they are, will go to hell because they do not know Jesus. Needless to say, I felt like vomitting.

When a religious nut comes to me and says "Jesus loves you" and tries to give me a tract (and unlike indoctrinated religious folks who are basically pre-programmed to accept the tract or booklet), for me, in an instant, I see how useless it is and refuse. Simple; it does not make sense whatsoever.

Images of historical events, the ancient empires, Pharoah's grand temples and claims of being god himself, aztec heart-throbbing sacrifical murders, burning screaming people at the stake, the formation of the earth with the heavy molten lava sweeping in thru the continental cracks to gather in the center, the creation stories from a 100 different religions that came before christianity, the simple coincidences in life which are attributed to answered prayers by religious folks (!), the ridiculous concept of a devil, the purification by water concept. I see images of people praying in mosques, hindu temples and churces...which god is listening...if anyone?! To a religious mind, these thought process don't occur but it does for me and I realize that I am just human #9685849487373 living out a life and that any religion's claims of truth is delusional bullshit. Thinking logically like this rather than emotionally is better.

A christian sees Billy Graham and sees a prophet...an atheist sees Billy Graham and sees a delusional religious figure in a line of many. No wonder the religious authority folks hate atheists very much...because we see them as to who they really are (fakester punks) while their followers see them as who they tell them they are.

In a nutshell, christianity is like a salesman that is trying to make you put down your cash for a product you get after you die. Just see how ridiculous the concept is. The money here is your very life...the religious establishment wants you to live a "honest" life of slavery while they stay in charge. I wouldn't throw away my life to a lie to liars...better to enjoy each and every day than waste it dreaming about what happens after you die. After I die, I won't be able to do what I was able to do while I was alive. This instantly makes life more precious...something to be lived and protected.

For me, travel is very important. I want to be able to say that I saw this and went here and there. I want to die satisfied that there is nothing more to do. Now the religious gang love to deride this. 2 weeks ago at church, the pastor bashed atheists for "living thru their 5 senses" and said they lack "spiritual organs." I felt like making a disruption by shouting "if spiritual organs means self-delusion, then I will pass" but I didn't. lol

Lastly, religious folks don't seem to understand what atheism is. We reject your gods because they are silly just as you reject a hundred different gods that you don't like plus the doctrine is ridiculous full of holes and unbelievable at best. Atheism doesn't mean we are going to ditch our clothes and come to work naked. Sadly, this is what they think atheism is. This comes from them thinking morals can only come from a religious source.

If anyone is wondering why I go to church, without saying much, its part of a double life. Spoony is right when he said this:

Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 18:55

well, i could make an outward display of christianity. i could pretend i believed all this, i could probably fool anyone who took the time to wonder what my religious beliefs were,


^ It's so easy to trick em. But on a serious note, it is not funny getting your mind raped everyday. My mind is my own property...please stay off it.

HaTe wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 19:46

Tradition, culture, and fear aren't really something i would be willing to trust my life to......


Couldn't agree more.


http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/8746/buzzsigfinal.jpg
Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #424255 is a reply to message #424241] Tue, 30 March 2010 15:02 Go to previous messageGo to next message
HaTe is currently offline  HaTe
Messages: 923
Registered: August 2007
Karma: 0
Colonel
Nobody actually knows what happens when we die Spoony....so nobody actually knows what is "good for us" if we die. It may very well be that believing in god your entire life is the key to a happy afterlife, but i very highly doubt it. Like i said, i'm not worried about what will happen when i die, i'll focus on life for now, and take my chances then. I'm not going to live like someone who may or may not exist tells me to live.

Quote:

My mind is my own property...please stay off it.


Exactly. No one wants to have someone else influence their life, or drive their life from birth, yet that is basically what the stories of a christian god are doing...


http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t263/psuHaTe32_2007/HaTe3.jpg
‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’ - Edmund Burke
Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #424282 is a reply to message #422616] Tue, 30 March 2010 21:43 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Altzan is currently offline  Altzan
Messages: 1586
Registered: September 2008
Location: Tennessee
Karma: 0
General (1 Star)
Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41

well, it would be nice if all the christian authorities had said this for the last two thousand years, instead of specifically encouraging the persecution of jews, culminating in the holocaust.


Agreed.

Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41

Quote:

"Here the case is put of a city revolting from its allegiance to the God of Israel, and serving other gods.

I. The crime is supposed to be committed

oh dear. already i've got to stop you. i don't accept that a crime has been committed here.


Why should I care?
God created all, including the laws. He is the lawmaker. So if he says it's a crime, it is.

Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41

Quote:

The crime is supposed to be committed, 1. By one of the cities of Israel, that lay within the jurisdiction of their courts.

Ah. I think I see what he's getting at here; it only applies to the Israelites, does it? In that case, then the verse would be totally irrelevant in a modern context.


Yeah.

Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41

That would certainly be no problem for me; it would only be a problem for anybody who dared to say that God gave them this planet, their property etc.

But quite a lot of Christians do say that, don't they?


...What?

Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41

Quote:

The city that is here supposed to have become idolatrous is one that formerly worshipped the true God, but had now withdrawn to other gods, which intimates how great the crime is

...no, no it doesn't.

Although, "other gods"... do you think there are (or were) any other gods?


...yes, yes it does.

And no, I don't believe there were other gods, although those idolators apparently did.

Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41

He really has lost me here. Why would serving a different god mean someone has no desire to be bound by laws, or any "manner of virtue"? They're just picking a different set, aren't they?


Why would anyone cease serving a God, knowing they would incur his wrath, if they were only changing a few things? If they weren't changing their laws or virtues, they'd be better off staying...

Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41

Secondly, are non-theists thrown into the same category, I wonder?


Since atheists don't believe in a god, I'd say yes.

Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41

So it's ok to flatten an entire city if some of its inhabitants commit a crime, because anyone who was innocent would "no doubt" have already left.


If they knew what was going on in the city and didn't leave, they are at the least tolerating it, which hardly makes them innicent, does it?

Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41

Quote:

Let men know that God will not give his glory to another, nor his praise to graven images. 2. He expects that magistrates, having their honour and power from him, should be concerned for his honour, and use their power for terror to evil doers, else they bear the sword in vain.

And does he still expect that?


No, because it's no longer necessary today.

Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41

Quote:

The faithful worshippers of the true God must take all occasions to show their just indignation against idolatry, much more against atheism, infidelity, and irreligion.

Ah, so that means someone who does not take all occasions to show their just indignation against atheism and idolatry is not a faithful worshipper of the true God?


Yes...
But how, do you think, is 'indignation' defined here?

Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41

Quote:

Lastly, Though we do not find this law put in execution in all the history of the Jewish church (Gibeah was destroyed, not for idolatry, but immorality)

I wasn't sure what was originally meant by Gibeah, so I looked that up. I do recognise the story, though not as 'Gibeah'. The one about the baying mob who want to rape the male visitor, and the decision by the men to throw the young women to the mob to save themselves. So the visitor's woman gets raped to death. That one. It's similar to the Lot story, isn't it? The similarity of the narrative, the almost identical speech reported, and the fact that modern Christians seem to draw some really odd moral lessons from it, i.e. homosexuality is evil, but if you find yourself faced by a mob of rapists, just throw a defenceless young girl at them and save yourself.


Are you implying that God OK'd this?
From what I read, this incident got the city destroyed by the Israelites shortly after.

Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41

Quote:

yet for the neglect of the execution of it upon the inferior cities that served idols God himself, by the army of the Chaldeans, put it in execution upon Jerusalem, the head city, which, for is apostasy from God, was utterly destroyed and laid waste, and lay in ruins seventy years.

What's he saying here?


I think he's referencing a real or hypothetical situation where the Israelites didn't destroy a city of idolators, and that city rose up and destroyed the Israelite's Jerusalem.

Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41

So, idolatry, serving other gods etc, they're things which absolutely infuriate God. Yes, the old testament makes that clear... and it doesn't exactly work in his favour. There are plenty of evil actions he either doesn't mind or positively recommends - slavery, for example - but if you have a different religious opinion, you'd better watch out.
So there must be a law against this "crime" in the Old Testament. But as he says here, in the New Testament, the law is not binding anymore, but it still infuriates God and he'll still punish people who do it? So why repeal the law?


The 'no idols' law is one of the Ten Commandments, which are in effect today (except Sabbath).

Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41

This all assumes that the person doing the "tempting" has evil intentions... what if they're just someone like you, evangelising? Someone who genuinely believes in their God, and wants to spread the good news?


How does it 'assume evil intentions'? It only warns against those who'd turn you from God, no matter what approach.

Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41

as an aside, do you really believe that the snake in the garden was Satan?


Yes.

Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41

Quote:

Concerning the false gods proposed to be served

Define "false god", please.


I'm pretty sure you know what it means.
Feel free to make a point out of it if you were planning to.

Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41

Quote:

II. It is our duty to prefer God and religion before the best friends we have in the world.

Including your children?
What would be your response to the Abraham test, do you think?


Same as Abraham's.
Thankfully, I gave never been commanded to sacrifice a child to God, in fact nobody has (except Abraham of course, but as you said, it was a test.)

Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41

Again, the author is recognising that people might, unbelievably, have a problem with this commandment. Their compassion might get in the way. I certainly hope so. I wonder why I've never heard a Christian say that compassion was a work of Satan.


Because it isn't. Compassion can compel towards sinful action, is the point here.

Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41

Suppose I said the following.
You, Altzan, are certainly my worst enemy that would thrust me from reason, my best friend. Whatever draws me to religion, separates between myself and my reason, is a design upon my mind, to be resented accordingly.


Well, if you did say that to me, I'd be saddened by the fact.

Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41

It's not actually so far from the truth, although I wouldn't say this would justify me killing you for trying.


We're agreed then?

Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41

k, but the other opinion is crap, isn't it?


It's no more crap than yours. Opinions are just that, opinions. So naturally you'd think an opposing opinion is crap... heck, it's what I think of yours.

Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41

the catholic church is still spreading its evil doctrine against contraception even now.


Ahh.
You've only mentioned it in historical context up to this point, so I assumed it wasn't ongoing.

Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41

I will give you credit where credit is due. I think this is the most honest and reasonable thing I've seen you say in these religious debates.
It goes a bit wrong from there, though... you ask me how do I know they weren't inspired by god. well, i've been waiting for quite some time for anybody to explain what they even mean by god, and prove his existence, and demonstrate that he's worth listening to.
Once they've done that, then I'll be sure to give due consideration to whether a book claiming to be inspired by him actually is. Otherwise I don't really see the point.


In other words, you won't believe unless you have certain proof.
Is this the basis of your earlier argument? That some people simply cannot believe God's word because there's not enough evidence? The vast majority of the human population believe with faith, which shows it's NOT impossible (disregarding whether or not the faith in question is well founded, seeing as how you'd try and make that a counterpoint). If you've told yourself that it's impossible for you to believe in anything without proof, then you're lying to yourself. Simple as that.

Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41

Quote:

I could use ANY exmple here if I wanted. I'm not talking about the act in particular. Let's change it to whatever law then - the lawbreaker disagrees with the law at hand, and doesn't think it's a proper law and should not be enforced. Should we punish him anyway, or should we let him be, since it isn't fair that we punish him for breaking a law he doesn't think is fair or right?

The contents of the bible aren't laws at all; nobody's ever demonstrated that they come from any position of authority.


Similar to what you said near the beginning of the post.

Still, though - "Should we punish him anyway, or should we let him be, since it isn't fair that we punish him for breaking a law he doesn't think is fair or right?"

Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41

That's the legal side. On to the moral side. What if the majority thinks the law is wrong? Can it be changed democratically?


If the majority is a part of the lawmaking process, then yes.

Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41

Quote:

Also, if we were made by a mad scientist, we'd be wherever he was (unless he was completely alone in the universe) and would be subject to his existence as well, so...

you've lost me there.


A 'mad scientist' would be in a lab, located in a universe where other beings existed with their own laws and morals. Wouldn't the people created by the mad scientist be subject to the laws of that universe?

Spoony wrote on Fri, 26 March 2010 11:53

if instead you decide that you were created by your parents in the traditional way, do they rule you for your entire life?


No. Although they should take responsibility for your early life to insure survival.

Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41

what do you think will happen to the other kinds of Christian after they die? i.e. everyone outside your denomination who says they're a Christian but, in your church's view, are mistaken.


If they've broken Biblical commandments, the same will happen to them as others who do the same.

Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41

firstly you don't seem to be challenging my statement that his moral standards are absolutely shit.
secondly it really is cryptic, or at least too cryptic for humans, otherwise the vast majority of the world wouldn't have a problem with it.


I won't challenge your 'statement' since it's your opinion and that would be pointless.
And what's so cryptic about the 5-step plan or what God considers sin?


I cannot imagine how the clockwork of the universe can exist without a clockmaker. ~Voltaire
Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #424288 is a reply to message #424219] Wed, 31 March 2010 00:41 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
snpr1101 is currently offline  snpr1101
Messages: 425
Registered: June 2007
Location: Australia
Karma: 0
Commander
Spoony wrote on Tue, 30 March 2010 08:34

snpr1101 wrote on Tue, 30 March 2010 00:47

HaTe wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 19:46

Science>Religion
Proof>Belief
Seeing>Wondering
Knowing>Assuming

Not even going to read the whole topic, but that is my general opinion. I'd rather have actual proof, without having to be convinced and dragged into, rather than assumptions and, what appear to me - are false hopes. I'm not one to judge anyone by their religion, but i do feel as if they may not be aware of some of the actual facts out there....like the fact that there has been, what, hundreds of different religions before us, all believing 100% that THEIR religion, and their gods were what was real. Then every other religion comes and says they are wrong, and that the religion they believe in is right....when there is yet to be facts about any of this. Seems like it's more culture and tradition to believe in one defined religion now-a-days anyway....or just the fear that when you die, you will not be taken care of, or go to hell, if you do not believe. I'd rather not get my hopes about something that appears to me as proven to be false more than true to this point. Tradition, culture, and fear aren't really something i would be willing to trust my life to.....even science would be better.


Yea but what does science offer you after you die - a nice little story about the decomposition of your body.

What does religion (generally) offer? - A nice little story about living in an unimaginable paradise if you're a good little boy or girl for eternity.

Not hard to see why so many people would rather believe in religion, as science promises nothing except knowledge for present use. After you die, what good is it to you?

I know what i'd want after I died, yet reality drags the wishful mind back into the real world; and the facts are daunting.


let's not understate of the benefits of science. presumably neither you nor anyone close to you has ever had a potentially life-threatening illness, for example. what use is religion in the field of medicine? according to the holy books, plagues and other natural disasters usually happen because god is punishing someone. that'd be a real help if you had cancer, wouldn't it? "sorry we can't do a damn thing to help you, and what's more, it's your fault anyway"

and as for "after you die, what good is it to you"? well, after you die, what more do you need? nobody's ever given a convincing reason to think that there is life after death.

on to the promises of paradise.
firstly, would you rather be told the unwelcome truth or a comforting lie? seems you'd rather be told what you'd find more comforting, regardless of how much truth there is to it.

secondly, many religions say that the way to paradise is more to do with believing the right thing than it is to do with your actions.
thirdly, many religions' rules - some of them, at least - are pretty shitty. to take the most obvious example, the 72-virgins business.
here's what you said:
"What does religion (generally) offer? - A nice little story about living in an unimaginable paradise if you're a good little boy or girl for eternity."
well, islam offers a paradise if you die in battle, and islam also says that non-muslims are the perpetual enemy. look at the results.


I don't know to what degree you're challenging what I said, but I wasn't intending to understate the benefits of science, just made a short and sweet message. Yea of course stating - science provides knowledge for the present isn't encompassing all that is science and the benefits it provides.

As for the after you die part, I wasn't saying you needed anything after you die, it was simply a comparison between what science "offers" you after death, and what religion "offers" you. Again I wasn't arguing for either side nor did I say anyone had given any convincing reasons. The clear point I was making was that the potential future after death that religion offers is certainly brighter than the one science does. (I use the term religion loosely and I know there are differences between each)

Finally, i can't see how you can come to the conclusion that I personally would prefer a comforting lie over truth. I simply made a general observation as to why I thought people believed in the promises made to you by religion after death.

And by the way, my granddad had toes and feet amputated. He eventually died of a stroke. My Grandmother suffers from servere parkinsons' disease at present. I myself was very sick as a child, and have come close to death many times.

Not trying to turn this into a self pity post or a "who knows more family members who've died or suffered" contest. Just pointing out your assumption was wrong.

edit; off topic: i thought Spoony had passed away? Am I mistaken, or are you a friend / family member using his account?








[Updated on: Wed, 31 March 2010 00:43]

Report message to a moderator

Previous Topic: Blasphemy Day
Next Topic: Renegade is thoroughly broken
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Sat Jun 01 09:44:39 MST 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01505 seconds