Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #424290 is a reply to message #424282] |
Wed, 31 March 2010 01:13   |
 |
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
nothing much to quarrel with in starbuzz's posts.
| Quote: |
Nobody actually knows what happens when we die Spoony....so nobody actually knows what is "good for us" if we die. It may very well be that believing in god your entire life is the key to a happy afterlife, but i very highly doubt it. Like i said, i'm not worried about what will happen when i die, i'll focus on life for now, and take my chances then. I'm not going to live like someone who may or may not exist tells me to live.
|
I don't claim to know for certain what happens to us after we die; just said it looks to me like that's the end for us in any conscious sense, and for all the people who've asserted otherwise they've never made a convincing case of it.
it's like god, really. i don't say there definitely isn't one; i just say nobody's ever made a convincing case that there is.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 |
| Quote: |
"Here the case is put of a city revolting from its allegiance to the God of Israel, and serving other gods.
I. The crime is supposed to be committed
|
oh dear. already i've got to stop you. i don't accept that a crime has been committed here.
|
Why should I care?
God created all, including the laws. He is the lawmaker. So if he says it's a crime, it is.
|
Let's call this concept what it is; a complete and unchallengeable dictatorship. The argument from authority doesn't fly with me, especially when nobody's even managed to demonstrate that there is any authority at all in this case.
But if you're going to take the "god says it, and that's all i need to know" line, then I have a hypothetical question for you. Let's say it was somehow proven that the Islamic revelation was correct. Mohammed claimed to be inspired by the same god you believe in. I expect you don't believe that any more than I do, but let's suppose it was conclusively proven. Would you then abide by the Islamic code of behaviour? Some of them aren't so pretty; there are hundreds of verses in the Islamic scriptures speaking of Allah's (same god, remember) fury and contempt towards non-believers, and quite a few instructions to fight non-Muslims and either convert them to Islam, subjugate them under Islamic rule, or kill them. So if it turned out that Mohammed really was inspired by god, you'd grab a sword and have at it, would you?
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 |
| Quote: |
The crime is supposed to be committed, 1. By one of the cities of Israel, that lay within the jurisdiction of their courts.
|
Ah. I think I see what he's getting at here; it only applies to the Israelites, does it? In that case, then the verse would be totally irrelevant in a modern context.
|
Yeah.
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 |
That would certainly be no problem for me; it would only be a problem for anybody who dared to say that God gave them this planet, their property etc.
But quite a lot of Christians do say that, don't they?
|
...What?
|
well, it doesn't really seem like we can just say that only applies to the israelites.
what's the justification? "god's obviously talking to the israelites because they're the people he gave this land to". well, a lot of christians say ad nauseum that god gave them whatever they have.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 |
| Quote: |
The city that is here supposed to have become idolatrous is one that formerly worshipped the true God, but had now withdrawn to other gods, which intimates how great the crime is
|
...no, no it doesn't.
Although, "other gods"... do you think there are (or were) any other gods?
|
...yes, yes it does.
And no, I don't believe there were other gods, although those idolators apparently did.
|
Ah, the argument from authority again.
Well, if just saying "god says it's wrong, case closed" is all the moral justification that's necessary, I wonder why Christians ever try going any further than that and explain why certain actions are wrong, what harm could be caused by them. Don't get me wrong, I approve of the moral debate.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 |
He really has lost me here. Why would serving a different god mean someone has no desire to be bound by laws, or any "manner of virtue"? They're just picking a different set, aren't they?
|
Why would anyone cease serving a God, knowing they would incur his wrath, if they were only changing a few things? If they weren't changing their laws or virtues, they'd be better off staying...
|
That's not the original point... the original point was Henry's implication that someone serving a different god must mean the person does not want laws, does not want any virtue in his life. That's obviously nonsense.
But as to your question... why would anyone cease serving your God? Two major reasons spring to mind; either because they find it unconvincing or because they object to it on moral grounds.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 |
Secondly, are non-theists thrown into the same category, I wonder?
|
Since atheists don't believe in a god, I'd say yes.
|
so presumably the same commandment would apply if there were some atheists in the city too, i expect?
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 |
So it's ok to flatten an entire city if some of its inhabitants commit a crime, because anyone who was innocent would "no doubt" have already left.
|
If they knew what was going on in the city and didn't leave, they are at the least tolerating it, which hardly makes them innicent, does it?
|
Oh, dear.
So we're making the assumption that non-belief, or different religious viewpoints are crimes, and we're making the further assumption that everyone in the city is either committing these 'crimes' or knows about them.
What you're doing here is drawing a moral equivalence between the two. Both groups are going to get the same punishment, aren't they?
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 |
| Quote: |
Let men know that God will not give his glory to another, nor his praise to graven images. 2. He expects that magistrates, having their honour and power from him, should be concerned for his honour, and use their power for terror to evil doers, else they bear the sword in vain.
|
And does he still expect that?
|
No, because it's no longer necessary today.
|
How do you know that? Or, if you prefer I rephrase the question, why do you think that?
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 |
| Quote: |
The faithful worshippers of the true God must take all occasions to show their just indignation against idolatry, much more against atheism, infidelity, and irreligion.
|
Ah, so that means someone who does not take all occasions to show their just indignation against atheism and idolatry is not a faithful worshipper of the true God?
|
Yes...
But how, do you think, is 'indignation' defined here?
|
Well, the severity of the punishment usually depends on how serious you think the crime is, doesn't it?
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 |
| Quote: |
Lastly, Though we do not find this law put in execution in all the history of the Jewish church (Gibeah was destroyed, not for idolatry, but immorality)
|
I wasn't sure what was originally meant by Gibeah, so I looked that up. I do recognise the story, though not as 'Gibeah'. The one about the baying mob who want to rape the male visitor, and the decision by the men to throw the young women to the mob to save themselves. So the visitor's woman gets raped to death. That one. It's similar to the Lot story, isn't it? The similarity of the narrative, the almost identical speech reported, and the fact that modern Christians seem to draw some really odd moral lessons from it, i.e. homosexuality is evil, but if you find yourself faced by a mob of rapists, just throw a defenceless young girl at them and save yourself.
|
Are you implying that God OK'd this?
From what I read, this incident got the city destroyed by the Israelites shortly after.
|
am I implying god approved of that? no. however, i couldn't find any condemnation of the actions of the man who threw the defenceless young girls at the rape mob so the men would survive.
speaking of rape, i've got a question for christians. what, in your view and in the view of your church, is the worse act of these two:
- a man rapes a woman
- two men, consenting adults, choose to have a sexual relationship
i've got a few questions like this. for example, here's one for catholics, so you needn't answer it though i'd be interested in hearing Muad_Dib's response. what would be the worse of these two hypothetical situations?
- condoms became freely available all over the world
- one child, just one, is raped by a priest
(i'd love to ask the pope that, but i'd also like to see him dragged before an international court)
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 |
| Quote: |
yet for the neglect of the execution of it upon the inferior cities that served idols God himself, by the army of the Chaldeans, put it in execution upon Jerusalem, the head city, which, for is apostasy from God, was utterly destroyed and laid waste, and lay in ruins seventy years.
|
What's he saying here?
|
I think he's referencing a real or hypothetical situation where the Israelites didn't destroy a city of idolators, and that city rose up and destroyed the Israelite's Jerusalem.
|
i dunno, it's really unclear to me.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 |
So, idolatry, serving other gods etc, they're things which absolutely infuriate God. Yes, the old testament makes that clear... and it doesn't exactly work in his favour. There are plenty of evil actions he either doesn't mind or positively recommends - slavery, for example - but if you have a different religious opinion, you'd better watch out.
So there must be a law against this "crime" in the Old Testament. But as he says here, in the New Testament, the law is not binding anymore, but it still infuriates God and he'll still punish people who do it? So why repeal the law?
|
The 'no idols' law is one of the Ten Commandments, which are in effect today (except Sabbath).
|
So Matthew Henry was wrong, then, to say it is no longer binding according to the gospels?
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 |
This all assumes that the person doing the "tempting" has evil intentions... what if they're just someone like you, evangelising? Someone who genuinely believes in their God, and wants to spread the good news?
|
How does it 'assume evil intentions'? It only warns against those who'd turn you from God, no matter what approach.
|
Read the commandment and the commentary; the contempt is very clear. It doesn't attempt to find out why the person is saying this, and doesn't seek to make a distinction if that was known.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 |
as an aside, do you really believe that the snake in the garden was Satan?
|
Yes.
|
and where did you read that?
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 |
| Quote: |
Concerning the false gods proposed to be served
|
Define "false god", please.
|
I'm pretty sure you know what it means.
Feel free to make a point out of it if you were planning to.
|
I'll just repeat the question. Define a false god, please. It's not clear at all to me whether the god of the old testament knows of the existence of other gods or not. So what's a false god? Some entity that claims to be a god but isn't? Some entity that does have supernatural power but isn't "good"? Some entity that does have supernatural power but didn't create the whole world? I'd really like to know.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 |
| Quote: |
II. It is our duty to prefer God and religion before the best friends we have in the world.
|
Including your children?
What would be your response to the Abraham test, do you think?
|
Same as Abraham's.
Thankfully, I gave never been commanded to sacrifice a child to God, in fact nobody has (except Abraham of course, but as you said, it was a test.)
|
oh dear.
you're the second christian i've asked this question to, and you're the second to give the wrong answer.
the right answer is telling god to go to hell, no i won't murder an innocent child for you, you evil, evil fuck. and if you want to punish me for disobedience, then go ahead, you twat, because i'd rather have that than murder an innocent child.
if that had been abraham's response, and god had then shone a beam of light down on him and said well done, that was the right answer, you've passed the test... then that would be a moral story i could actually respect.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 |
Again, the author is recognising that people might, unbelievably, have a problem with this commandment. Their compassion might get in the way. I certainly hope so. I wonder why I've never heard a Christian say that compassion was a work of Satan.
|
Because it isn't. Compassion can compel towards sinful action, is the point here.
|
And why would compassion get in the way? Why are some of us wired so that would happen?
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 |
Suppose I said the following.
You, Altzan, are certainly my worst enemy that would thrust me from reason, my best friend. Whatever draws me to religion, separates between myself and my reason, is a design upon my mind, to be resented accordingly.
|
Well, if you did say that to me, I'd be saddened by the fact.
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 |
It's not actually so far from the truth, although I wouldn't say this would justify me killing you for trying.
|
We're agreed then?
|
no, because i'm not the one here justifying murder on the grounds of a religious disagreement.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 |
k, but the other opinion is crap, isn't it?
|
It's no more crap than yours. Opinions are just that, opinions. So naturally you'd think an opposing opinion is crap... heck, it's what I think of yours.
|
feel free to explain why, although remember what i said about arguments from authority.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 |
the catholic church is still spreading its evil doctrine against contraception even now.
|
Ahh.
You've only mentioned it in historical context up to this point, so I assumed it wasn't ongoing.
|
not at all. anyone can mention the historical evils of the catholic church... the crusades, the inquisition, the forced conversion of indigenous populations, the enthusiastic collaboration with fascism... anyone can do that. but right now it's probably more worthwhile to talk about the evil things it's still doing. the most obvious two would be the systematic coverup of the child rapists, and its position on contraception.
| Quote: |
In other words, you won't believe unless you have certain proof.
Is this the basis of your earlier argument? That some people simply cannot believe God's word because there's not enough evidence? The vast majority of the human population believe with faith, which shows it's NOT impossible (disregarding whether or not the faith in question is well founded, seeing as how you'd try and make that a counterpoint).
|
This is a point against your side, not mine.
It is probably true that the majority of the human population seem to believe religious things on faith. But the proportion of humanity who believe the same things you do are a minority. And that's talking about people who do think faith is a virtue. I've never heard a convincing argument that faith is ever a good thing, but consider those that do think faith is worthwhile. Even most of them don't believe, for example, that Jesus was the son of God. There are some things that are so ridiculous that even "people of faith" don't believe them. No doubt you don't believe for a moment that Mohammed was really inspired by your God, as he claimed to be. No doubt you don't believe that the Emperor Hirohito was a god, as he claimed to be. I could give you a great many more examples, but those two will suffice as religious claims you simply don't believe, so if you stop and think about why you don't believe them, you might begin to understand why someone else might not believe the same stuff as you.
| Quote: |
If you've told yourself that it's impossible for you to believe in anything without proof
|
Uh, no, I didn't say that. My friend told me last night about his recent trip to Istanbul. I didn't ask him for proof.
Whether I want proof for a claim depends on its believability and its implications. If you just wanted to claim that there was a man called Jesus who had some radical ideas on morality and ended up getting crucified, then fine. I don't need proof of that, I'll be quite happy to read his ideas and judge them on their own merits. If instead you try telling me that he was the son of God, that he rose from the dead, and that if I believe in him I can get everlasting life after death and that if I don't I'm in for an eternity of torture, then that needs proof.
Again, when a Muslim tells you that Islam is inspired by God, the God you already believe in, you don't believe that without proof. (although, i wonder if you would even seriously consider any proof that could be shown to you)
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 |
| Quote: |
I could use ANY exmple here if I wanted. I'm not talking about the act in particular. Let's change it to whatever law then - the lawbreaker disagrees with the law at hand, and doesn't think it's a proper law and should not be enforced. Should we punish him anyway, or should we let him be, since it isn't fair that we punish him for breaking a law he doesn't think is fair or right?
|
The contents of the bible aren't laws at all; nobody's ever demonstrated that they come from any position of authority.
|
Similar to what you said near the beginning of the post.
|
Well?
Here's what needs to happen before anything in the Bible can be seriously considered a 'law'.
1. Prove this god exists.
2. Prove this book is an accurate depiction of his views; i.e. prove he actually said what the bible says he said.
3. Successfully make the case that god is of such extraordinary moral brilliance that a dictatorship under him would be better than a democracy
4. Win the vote to discard our current democratic systems
all of the above need to happen, but i think only one of them ever could.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 |
That's the legal side. On to the moral side. What if the majority thinks the law is wrong? Can it be changed democratically?
|
If the majority is a part of the lawmaking process, then yes.
|
So basically no, then?
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 |
| Quote: |
Also, if we were made by a mad scientist, we'd be wherever he was (unless he was completely alone in the universe) and would be subject to his existence as well, so...
|
you've lost me there.
|
A 'mad scientist' would be in a lab, located in a universe where other beings existed with their own laws and morals. Wouldn't the people created by the mad scientist be subject to the laws of that universe?
|
ah. it was "his existence" that confused me.
well, i'll just repeat my earlier question about how you know the details of the genesis account of creation, and why it makes such a difference anyway.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Fri, 26 March 2010 11:53 |
if instead you decide that you were created by your parents in the traditional way, do they rule you for your entire life?
|
No. Although they should take responsibility for your early life to insure survival.
|
well done.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 |
what do you think will happen to the other kinds of Christian after they die? i.e. everyone outside your denomination who says they're a Christian but, in your church's view, are mistaken.
|
If they've broken Biblical commandments, the same will happen to them as others who do the same.
|
so it's all about actions rather than beliefs, is it?
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 |
firstly you don't seem to be challenging my statement that his moral standards are absolutely shit.
secondly it really is cryptic, or at least too cryptic for humans, otherwise the vast majority of the world wouldn't have a problem with it.
|
I won't challenge your 'statement' since it's your opinion and that would be pointless.
|
then i wonder why you went to the trouble of trying to answer my earlier criticism by posting the matthew henry crap.
| Quote: |
And what's so cryptic about the 5-step plan or what God considers sin?
|
when i said cryptic, i was using the word to encompass all objections people - the majority of the human population - have against christianity.
what is the 5-step plan, though? i could look it up, i'm sure, but i may as well hear it from you.
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 #424291 is a reply to message #424288] |
Wed, 31 March 2010 01:24 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| snpr1101 wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 01:41 |
I don't know to what degree you're challenging what I said, but I wasn't intending to understate the benefits of science, just made a short and sweet message. Yea of course stating - science provides knowledge for the present isn't encompassing all that is science and the benefits it provides.
As for the after you die part, I wasn't saying you needed anything after you die, it was simply a comparison between what science "offers" you after death, and what religion "offers" you.
|
sure.
science tries to find out what actually happens to you after death and if it finds out for sure, will tell you based on what the evidence shows. religion simply tells you what it wants to tell you.
| Quote: |
Again I wasn't arguing for either side nor did I say anyone had given any convincing reasons. The clear point I was making was that the potential future after death that religion offers is certainly brighter than the one science does. (I use the term religion loosely and I know there are differences between each)
|
i wouldn't say that it's brighter. i don't find it comforting to be told that this life is basically a qualifying period before the afterlife, and i haven't yet heard of a religion whose rules i like.
| Quote: |
Finally, i can't see how you can come to the conclusion that I personally would prefer a comforting lie over truth. I simply made a general observation as to why I thought people believed in the promises made to you by religion after death.
|
ok, but it only boils down to wish-thinking in the end, doesn't it? and if i assumed that about you, then it was probably thanks to the "i know what I'd rather want"
| Quote: |
And by the way, my granddad had toes and feet amputated. He eventually died of a stroke. My Grandmother suffers from servere parkinsons' disease at present. I myself was very sick as a child, and have come close to death many times.
Not trying to turn this into a self pity post or a "who knows more family members who've died or suffered" contest. Just pointing out your assumption was wrong.
|
i'm happy to be corrected in that case, although you do accept my general point, surely?
| Quote: |
edit; off topic: i thought Spoony had passed away? Am I mistaken, or are you a friend / family member using his account?
|
I think you are thinking of Spoonplex, a member of the Jelly community who passed away a year or two ago.
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 #424324 is a reply to message #424295] |
Wed, 31 March 2010 16:40 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| snpr1101 wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 03:46 |
Ah ok, I think he may have been called spoony by some as a nickname at some point.
|
That's quite likely to have happened at some point.
| Quote: |
Yea that was my bad with the " i know what I'd prefer statement" - sometimes I don't read my own shit properly. It was a loose statement, reinforcing the "brightness" (Yea i know you don't think it's bright. but I couldn't be fucked coming up with another adjective describing the vast contrast between heaven and a rotting corpse in the ground that you'd agree with) or better looking potential future.
|
no problem, but if the best argument is that heaven/hell is supposedly more comforting than the likelihood of death being final, regardless of whether it's true or not, if we're only talking about wish-thinking and not about truth, then let me respond by saying what *I* find comforting. for example, i've never been told by a religious person, never, that i will go to heaven. i've been told many times that i will go to hell. in every single one of these cases, the justification the person used was not "you deserve this because you did such-and-such evil action". in every case, it was "you deserve this because of what you believe or don't believe". well, like i said earlier and like starbuzz illustrated with an account of his own life, i could pretend i believed all this christianity crap. really, i could. i could also pretend i was morally okay with it. what i can't do is just flick a switch inside my mind and actually believe it, or make my moral objections to it go away.
so i'm fucked, if it's true.
please don't tell me i'm supposed to find this comforting.. the only comforting thing about this is precisely the fact there is no reason to think it's true.
i'm a grown man and i can handle being spoken to in this manner, and i don't want anyone telling the religious person that they shouldn't say this to me if it's what they think, but it's plain evil to talk to children this way.
you say this wasn't your argument but what you think someone else might say... fine, i responded to it regardless.
back to altzan. i'd just like to repeat something so there's no way you can say you missed it.
| Spoony wrote |
I'm going to emphasise a part of this quote, and then I'll throw it out here and we'll see whether you have anything to say about it.
"Children must be put to the sword."
|
you replied to the post containing this statement, and replied to most else of what i said, but did not seem to have anything to say about that part. let me tell you, if someone else had posted that, that is the part which would provoke the strongest moral objection from me, the part above all else i would absolutely make sure i replied to. so let's just exhaust the possibility that you didn't see me say it.
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
[Updated on: Wed, 31 March 2010 16:45] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #424328 is a reply to message #424295] |
Wed, 31 March 2010 17:47 |
 |
HaTe
Messages: 923
Registered: August 2007
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| snpr1101 wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 03:46 |
Just browsed over this now and then, and read HaTes statement and found it interesting.
|
What do you mean by "interesting?" As in you have never heard the theory/belief before, or as in you disagree, or only agree with parts of it? Just curious, because where i live, this is actually a more common belief than believing in a god, or being faithful to religion at all really. Even though everyone has their own personal opinion, and believes something very much their own, this is like a common ground for many peoples beliefs, believe it or not. It isn't highly publicized or anything, because, well, the law used to prohibit it in many places, and still does in many places (to teach the theory of evolution, that is).
‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’ - Edmund Burke
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #424349 is a reply to message #424324] |
Thu, 01 April 2010 00:03 |
 |
snpr1101
Messages: 425
Registered: June 2007
Location: Australia
Karma: 0
|
Commander |
|
|
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 01 April 2010 01:40 |
| snpr1101 wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 03:46 |
Ah ok, I think he may have been called spoony by some as a nickname at some point.
|
That's quite likely to have happened at some point.
| Quote: |
Yea that was my bad with the " i know what I'd prefer statement" - sometimes I don't read my own shit properly. It was a loose statement, reinforcing the "brightness" (Yea i know you don't think it's bright. but I couldn't be fucked coming up with another adjective describing the vast contrast between heaven and a rotting corpse in the ground that you'd agree with) or better looking potential future.
|
no problem, but if the best argument is that heaven/hell is supposedly more comforting than the likelihood of death being final, regardless of whether it's true or not, if we're only talking about wish-thinking and not about truth, then let me respond by saying what *I* find comforting. for example, i've never been told by a religious person, never, that i will go to heaven. i've been told many times that i will go to hell. in every single one of these cases, the justification the person used was not "you deserve this because you did such-and-such evil action". in every case, it was "you deserve this because of what you believe or don't believe". well, like i said earlier and like starbuzz illustrated with an account of his own life, i could pretend i believed all this christianity crap. really, i could. i could also pretend i was morally okay with it. what i can't do is just flick a switch inside my mind and actually believe it, or make my moral objections to it go away.
so i'm fucked, if it's true.
please don't tell me i'm supposed to find this comforting.. the only comforting thing about this is precisely the fact there is no reason to think it's true.
i'm a grown man and i can handle being spoken to in this manner, and i don't want anyone telling the religious person that they shouldn't say this to me if it's what they think, but it's plain evil to talk to children this way.
you say this wasn't your argument but what you think someone else might say... fine, i responded to it regardless.
back to altzan. i'd just like to repeat something so there's no way you can say you missed it.
| Spoony wrote |
I'm going to emphasise a part of this quote, and then I'll throw it out here and we'll see whether you have anything to say about it.
"Children must be put to the sword."
|
you replied to the post containing this statement, and replied to most else of what i said, but did not seem to have anything to say about that part. let me tell you, if someone else had posted that, that is the part which would provoke the strongest moral objection from me, the part above all else i would absolutely make sure i replied to. so let's just exhaust the possibility that you didn't see me say it.
|
Hypothetical:
Think of it this way, paradise after death, (no religious strings attached)OR nothingness as your corpse rots in the ground. I would presume that you would pick paradise. NO religious criteria applies to this choice. I personally would find it comforting if I knew I could enter such a place after death, and I certainly would chose it over the latter. Just consider your answer with the hypothetical provided, don't challenge it, it doesn't need to be challenged. We're talking about what you'd find more comforting out of the two choices. I know that the promise of paradise does not make sense without religion, but make the choice anyway 
Edit: @HaTe - I just found it interesting, period. It just sparked some thought and prompted me to add to what you said.
[Updated on: Thu, 01 April 2010 00:06] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #424354 is a reply to message #424349] |
Thu, 01 April 2010 01:46 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
are you saying that you would not need to meet any particular criteria to qualify for the paradise?
i.e. done good stuff, avoided doing bad stuff, happened to find certain myths convincing etc
i also think i ought to ask what the paradise is actually like...
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 #424441 is a reply to message #424290] |
Thu, 01 April 2010 22:18 |
 |
Altzan
Messages: 1586
Registered: September 2008
Location: Tennessee
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 |
Let's call this concept what it is; a complete and unchallengeable dictatorship.
|
Dictatorship - a form of government where the single leader has sovreignity.
So yeah, it's a dictatorship.
Too bad that word comes with a negative connotation.
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 |
The argument from authority doesn't fly with me, especially when nobody's even managed to demonstrate that there is any authority at all in this case.
|
Nobody's managed to prove God exists.
We all know that, yet you keep stating it repeatedly...
Why?
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 |
But if you're going to take the "god says it, and that's all i need to know" line, then I have a hypothetical question for you. Let's say it was somehow proven that the Islamic revelation was correct. Mohammed claimed to be inspired by the same god you believe in. I expect you don't believe that any more than I do, but let's suppose it was conclusively proven. Would you then abide by the Islamic code of behaviour? Some of them aren't so pretty; there are hundreds of verses in the Islamic scriptures speaking of Allah's (same god, remember) fury and contempt towards non-believers, and quite a few instructions to fight non-Muslims and either convert them to Islam, subjugate them under Islamic rule, or kill them. So if it turned out that Mohammed really was inspired by god, you'd grab a sword and have at it, would you?
|
If it was proven that Islam's beliefs were fact, then yes, I would obey them.
Is that any worse than your statement that you'd challenge an almighty God, if you knew for fact he existed, because you don't like his authority? (In your case, I notice, you mainly rally against Old Testament authority.)
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 |
well, it doesn't really seem like we can just say that only applies to the israelites.
what's the justification? "god's obviously talking to the israelites because they're the people he gave this land to". well, a lot of christians say ad nauseum that god gave them whatever they have.
|
I don't know any Christians myself who claim that.
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 |
Well, if just saying "god says it's wrong, case closed" is all the moral justification that's necessary, I wonder why Christians ever try going any further than that and explain why certain actions are wrong, what harm could be caused by them. Don't get me wrong, I approve of the moral debate.
|
God didn't make up his moral code for giggles. He has reasons for his moral code. That's why Christians try to explain why - there is a why.
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 |
That's not the original point... the original point was Henry's implication that someone serving a different god must mean the person does not want laws, does not want any virtue in his life. That's obviously nonsense.
|
Why?
As I said, these people wouldn't have served a different God if they didn't have a different idea of laws or virtue; the notion that they would is indeed nonsense.
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 |
But as to your question... why would anyone cease serving your God? Two major reasons spring to mind; either because they find it unconvincing or because they object to it on moral grounds.
|
Another I can think of is wanting something that God can't give them or that God considers a sin. An addiction, for example... some people can get so attached to what God declares a sin that they decide it's easier to discard belief and keep what action they have... mainly because it's more physical and immediate that their belief.
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 |
so presumably the same commandment would apply if there were some atheists in the city too, i expect?
|
Yes.
Do you think those ought to be spared?
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 |
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 |
| Quote: |
He expects that magistrates, having their honour and power from him, should be concerned for his honour, and use their power for terror to evil doers, else they bear the sword in vain.
|
And does he still expect that?
|
No, because it's no longer necessary today.
|
How do you know that? Or, if you prefer I rephrase the question, why do you think that?
|
The Israelites had to defend against those who would destroy them, and the faith was small at the time.
Nowadays, it would be pretty hard to destroy every Christian and wipe the story off the face of the Earth (not that some wouldn't want to try) so a defense isn't necessary.
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 |
Well, the severity of the punishment usually depends on how serious you think the crime is, doesn't it?
|
Yes.
Go on...
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 |
am I implying god approved of that? no. however, i couldn't find any condemnation of the actions of the man who threw the defenceless young girls at the rape mob so the men would survive.
|
I don't know for a fact that he was condemned for that action, but if he was caught and his crime known, I'm sure he was.
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 |
speaking of rape, i've got a question for christians. what, in your view and in the view of your church, is the worse act of these two:
- a man rapes a woman
- two men, consenting adults, choose to have a sexual relationship
|
No sin is worse than another.
| Quote: |
yet for the neglect of the execution of it upon the inferior cities that served idols God himself
|
They didn't exact the punishment upon the idolaters as they were commanded
| Quote: |
by the army of the Chaldeans, put it in execution upon Jerusalem
|
The Chaldeans instead were the attackers
| Quote: |
the head city, which, for is apostasy from God, was utterly destroyed and laid waste, and lay in ruins seventy years.
|
The head city was destroyed by them alongsides.
Note that that's my guess as to what it means, I could be wrong.
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 |
So Matthew Henry was wrong, then, to say it is no longer binding according to the gospels?
|
I haven't seen him claim that.
He says we shouldn't be going around executing idolaters anymore, but idolatry is still a sin.
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 |
Read the commandment and the commentary; the contempt is very clear. It doesn't attempt to find out why the person is saying this, and doesn't seek to make a distinction if that was known.
|
Reasons are unimportant - it warns against false doctrine, nothing more. If a Catholic advocate tried to convert me, I'd either simply deny or I'd sit down with him and discuss why I don't believe in Catholicism.
No violent response is called for.
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 |
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 |
as an aside, do you really believe that the snake in the garden was Satan?
|
Yes.
|
and where did you read that?
|
Genesis.
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 |
I'll just repeat the question. Define a false god, please. It's not clear at all to me whether the god of the old testament knows of the existence of other gods or not. So what's a false god? Some entity that claims to be a god but isn't? Some entity that does have supernatural power but isn't "good"? Some entity that does have supernatural power but didn't create the whole world? I'd really like to know.
|
A false god is the god that is behind an idol being worshipped by a person or persons.
If a group of Israelites decided to worship images of a God named "Balahama", then that "Balahama" would be a false god.
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 |
you're the second christian i've asked this question to, and you're the second to give the wrong answer.
|
Who made you the judge of whether this answer was right or wrong? Since when do you have authority?
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 |
the right answer is telling god to go to hell, no i won't murder an innocent child for you, you evil, evil fuck. and if you want to punish me for disobedience, then go ahead, you twat, because i'd rather have that than murder an innocent child.
|
Then you'd fail the test. TEST being key word.
Note that God has never required human sacrifice. Abraham was asked this as a test to see whether he was truly faithful to God. If he had said no, then that meant he wasn't faithful enough to obey.
It's not about what he was asked to do, it was about whether or not he would obey.
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 |
And why would compassion get in the way? Why are some of us wired so that would happen?
|
We're all 'wired' to feel compassion. Unfortunately, compassion can compel us to do something wrong - a temptation.
Example - your friend has finally broken his alcohol addiction, but he is miserable as a result, and keeps desiring just 'one more drink'. You might feel pity and wish to fulfill his wish just to make him happy again. After all, it's just one more drink right? And it'd make him feel better!
But it would be a sin.
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 |
no, because i'm not the one here justifying murder on the grounds of a religious disagreement.
|
Good, because i have no desire to murder anyone because they don't share my belief.
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 |
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 |
k, but the other opinion is crap, isn't it?
|
It's no more crap than yours. Opinions are just that, opinions. So naturally you'd think an opposing opinion is crap... heck, it's what I think of yours.
|
feel free to explain why, although remember what i said about arguments from authority.
|
Why should I explain it? You don't agree with my opinion, I don't agree with yours.
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 |
those two will suffice as religious claims you simply don't believe, so if you stop and think about why you don't believe them, you might begin to understand why someone else might not believe the same stuff as you.
|
I have, thankfully.
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 |
| Quote: |
If you've told yourself that it's impossible for you to believe in anything without proof
|
Uh, no, I didn't say that. My friend told me last night about his recent trip to Istanbul. I didn't ask him for proof.
|
I guess I was too literal here.
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 |
Whether I want proof for a claim depends on its believability and its implications. If you just wanted to claim that there was a man called Jesus who had some radical ideas on morality and ended up getting crucified, then fine. I don't need proof of that, I'll be quite happy to read his ideas and judge them on their own merits. If instead you try telling me that he was the son of God, that he rose from the dead, and that if I believe in him I can get everlasting life after death and that if I don't I'm in for an eternity of torture, then that needs proof.
|
"Oh, dear."
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 |
Again, when a Muslim tells you that Islam is inspired by God, the God you already believe in, you don't believe that without proof. (although, i wonder if you would even seriously consider any proof that could be shown to you)
|
I don't want conclusive proof to believe their claims.
However, I find the Biblical story more convincing than the Qoran's.
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 |
Here's what needs to happen before anything in the Bible can be seriously considered a 'law'.
1. Prove this god exists.
2. Prove this book is an accurate depiction of his views; i.e. prove he actually said what the bible says he said.
3. Successfully make the case that god is of such extraordinary moral brilliance that a dictatorship under him would be better than a democracy
4. Win the vote to discard our current democratic systems
|
Heh, if 3 was proven then 4 would be unneccessary.
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 |
| Quote: |
If the majority is a part of the lawmaking process, then yes.
|
So basically no, then?
|
I didn't say no, so what do you mean?
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 |
| Quote: |
If they've broken Biblical commandments, the same will happen to them as others who do the same.
|
so it's all about actions rather than beliefs, is it?
|
I didn't say that. You can easily break Biblical commandments with both actions and/or beliefs.
Stealing - breaks a commandment
Believing baptism is unneccesary - breaks a commandment
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 |
then i wonder why you went to the trouble of trying to answer my earlier criticism by posting the matthew henry crap.
|
You were quoting scripture. That wasn't an opinion of yours, that was a point of yours you tried to back up. That's why i responded.
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 |
what is the 5-step plan, though? i could look it up, i'm sure, but i may as well hear it from you.
|
Strage, I'd have thought you'd be familiar with it, seeing as you're familiar with other scripture.
But OK:
1. Hear the message (Romans 10:17)
2. Believe it (Mark 16:16)
3. Repent of your past sins (Acts 2: 38)
4. State that you believe christ is the son of God (Romans 10:10)
5. Be baptized (Acts 2: 38)
Also, there's a sixth step I neglected to include (I really don't know why it isn't commonly called the 6-step plan)
6. Live faithfully until Death (Revelations 2: 10)
I cannot imagine how the clockwork of the universe can exist without a clockmaker. ~Voltaire
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #424452 is a reply to message #424441] |
Fri, 02 April 2010 05:45 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 01 April 2010 23:18 |
Dictatorship - a form of government where the single leader has sovreignity.
So yeah, it's a dictatorship.
Too bad that word comes with a negative connotation.
|
a negative meaning, not a negative connotation. dictatorship sucks by definition. and yet i don't know of any human dictatorship that managed to become as all-encompassing, unchallengeable and inescapable as the depiction in christianity.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 |
The argument from authority doesn't fly with me, especially when nobody's even managed to demonstrate that there is any authority at all in this case.
|
Nobody's managed to prove God exists.
We all know that, yet you keep stating it repeatedly...
Why?
|
because until you've gotten past that square one, most of your assertions are at best a waste of time.
| Quote: |
If it was proven that Islam's beliefs were fact, then yes, I would obey them.
|
so in a nutshell, the only reason you're not acting in the bloodthirsty, merciless way islam commands its followers to act is because you don't think it really came from God... there's no moral compunction holding you back, and there wouldn't be if it turned out you were wrong?
| Quote: |
Is that any worse than your statement that you'd challenge an almighty God, if you knew for fact he existed, because you don't like his authority?
|
yes, it is. i'm objecting to christianity because -a- i don't believe any of it and -b- i don't want a dictatorship and -c- i think his rules are absolutely shit.
your only objection to following islam's rules is you don't believe it. well, it's good you've laid out for us what at least two people reading this thread had already guessed... i.e. that you have no morals.
| Quote: |
(In your case, I notice, you mainly rally against Old Testament authority.)
|
not really, the most evil thing in the bible is probably the doctrine of hell.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 |
well, it doesn't really seem like we can just say that only applies to the israelites.
what's the justification? "god's obviously talking to the israelites because they're the people he gave this land to". well, a lot of christians say ad nauseum that god gave them whatever they have.
|
I don't know any Christians myself who claim that.
|
my word. i hear it all the time. saying that god gave them the world, saying they have god-given rights (such a stupid thing to say, but nvm for now), saying grace before a meal...
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 |
Well, if just saying "god says it's wrong, case closed" is all the moral justification that's necessary, I wonder why Christians ever try going any further than that and explain why certain actions are wrong, what harm could be caused by them. Don't get me wrong, I approve of the moral debate.
|
God didn't make up his moral code for giggles. He has reasons for his moral code. That's why Christians try to explain why - there is a why.
|
not a very good one, clearly.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 |
That's not the original point... the original point was Henry's implication that someone serving a different god must mean the person does not want laws, does not want any virtue in his life. That's obviously nonsense.
|
Why?
As I said, these people wouldn't have served a different God if they didn't have a different idea of laws or virtue; the notion that they would is indeed nonsense.
|
henry implied that if a person serves a different god, than that means they have NO virtues and wants NO laws. he didn't say it means they have different moral values... he said it means they have NO moral values.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 |
But as to your question... why would anyone cease serving your God? Two major reasons spring to mind; either because they find it unconvincing or because they object to it on moral grounds.
|
Another I can think of is wanting something that God can't give them or that God considers a sin. An addiction, for example... some people can get so attached to what God declares a sin that they decide it's easier to discard belief and keep what action they have... mainly because it's more physical and immediate that their belief.
|
"wanting something god can't give you" sounds like a pretty good reason to turn away from religion; if it can't give you basic human rights, democracy, and intellectual freedom, for example. wanting something god won't give you doesn't put the person at fault instead of the god.
nor does wanting to do something god considers a sin.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 |
so presumably the same commandment would apply if there were some atheists in the city too, i expect?
|
Yes.
Do you think those ought to be spared?
|
i'm not sure why you felt you needed to ask that, i thought i'd made two things quite clear
-1- it's immoral to punish someone for the crime of someone else
-2- having a different religious opinion is not even a crime at all
it's not really important that i am an atheist; if the intended slaughter victim was a muslim (a religion i find even more repellent than christianity), i'd still be against it.
| Quote: |
The Israelites had to defend against those who would destroy them, and the faith was small at the time. Nowadays, it would be pretty hard to destroy every Christian and wipe the story off the face of the Earth (not that some wouldn't want to try) so a defense isn't necessary.
|
odd to use the word "defense" to explain the supposed behaviour of the israelites...
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 |
Well, the severity of the punishment usually depends on how serious you think the crime is, doesn't it?
|
Yes.
Go on...
|
we were talking about how all truly faithful followers of god must show their "just indignation" to idolators, atheists etc. well, you've said that these things are actually crimes that can justify not only the slaughter of anyone doing it, but the slaughter of anyone in the same city, including children.
must be pretty heinous, then, as crimes go. sounds worse than murder; i don't recall there being a story in the bible where god destroys an entire city (or orders his followers to destroy it) because someone in the city was a murderer.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 |
am I implying god approved of that? no. however, i couldn't find any condemnation of the actions of the man who threw the defenceless young girls at the rape mob so the men would survive.
|
I don't know for a fact that he was condemned for that action, but if he was caught and his crime known, I'm sure he was.
|
why are you sure? i didn't find god saying the guy shouldn't have done it. you'd think a book perpetually trumpeted as an ultimate moral authority might have something to say against someone who throws a defenceless girl to a mob of rapists to save himself.
but speaking of rape...
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 |
speaking of rape, i've got a question for christians. what, in your view and in the view of your church, is the worse act of these two:
- a man rapes a woman
- two men, consenting adults, choose to have a sexual relationship
|
No sin is worse than another.
|
well, firstly punishments differ. the punishment for homosexual sex is death. the punishment for a man who rapes a woman is that he must marry her and pay her father off. so if one sin has a more severe punishment than another, doesn't that imply that one sin is more grievous than the other?
secondly, you don't think there's anything wrong with that rape rule? the man has to marry the woman and pay off her father. doesn't seem like a terribly severe punishment for the man. more to the point, it makes the woman's predicament even worse. she's just been raped, and then she's told she must marry the bastard who attacked and violated her. is it safe to assume you don't know any women who have been raped? who, in a modern civilised country, would seriously hold a moral position as shitty as this if they didn't get it from religion?
thirdly, you basically said that an adult man who enters into a consenting sexual relationship with another man is just as bad as a man who rapes a woman. i guess you don't know any gay people either. it really is sad to see someone's moral compass completely destroyed by religion.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
yet for the neglect of the execution of it upon the inferior cities that served idols God himself
|
They didn't exact the punishment upon the idolaters as they were commanded
| Quote: |
by the army of the Chaldeans, put it in execution upon Jerusalem
|
The Chaldeans instead were the attackers
| Quote: |
the head city, which, for is apostasy from God, was utterly destroyed and laid waste, and lay in ruins seventy years.
|
The head city was destroyed by them alongsides.
Note that that's my guess as to what it means, I could be wrong.
|
i think i'm beginning to follow it, it's worded terribly... it seems like because the people of jerusalem didn't carry out the punishment, god punished the people of jerusalem.
"God himself, by the army of the Chaldeans, put it in execution upon Jerusalem"
fair assessment? or if you prefer we can just leave this passage out, cos it really is incoherent
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 |
So Matthew Henry was wrong, then, to say it is no longer binding according to the gospels?
|
I haven't seen him claim that.
|
"Though idolaters may escape punishment from men (nor is this law in the letter of it binding now, under the gospel), yet the Lord our God will not suffer them to escape his righteous judgements."
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 |
Read the commandment and the commentary; the contempt is very clear. It doesn't attempt to find out why the person is saying this, and doesn't seek to make a distinction if that was known.
|
Reasons are unimportant - it warns against false doctrine, nothing more. If a Catholic advocate tried to convert me, I'd either simply deny or I'd sit down with him and discuss why I don't believe in Catholicism.
No violent response is called for.
|
uh, the bible actually intructs an extremely violent response, and you quoted matthew henry's tripe to try to justify it.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 |
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 |
as an aside, do you really believe that the snake in the garden was Satan?
|
Yes.
|
and where did you read that?
|
Genesis.
|
did you really?
perhaps you could quote the verse(s) in Genesis, the first book in the bible, that explain just who this Satan is and make it clear that the snake who tempted eve is indeed this character Satan.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 |
I'll just repeat the question. Define a false god, please. It's not clear at all to me whether the god of the old testament knows of the existence of other gods or not. So what's a false god? Some entity that claims to be a god but isn't? Some entity that does have supernatural power but isn't "good"? Some entity that does have supernatural power but didn't create the whole world? I'd really like to know.
|
A false god is the god that is behind an idol being worshipped by a person or persons.
If a group of Israelites decided to worship images of a God named "Balahama", then that "Balahama" would be a false god.
|
doesn't necessarily exist at all, then?
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 |
you're the second christian i've asked this question to, and you're the second to give the wrong answer.
|
Who made you the judge of whether this answer was right or wrong? Since when do you have authority?
|
my moral authority is higher than your god's. for starters, you haven't even proven he exists at all, let alone that he is supremely "good". it's also higher than yours. i'll justify that just by reminding everyone that you have
-a- justified the slaughter of innocent people for the crimes of others
-b- been given two clear opportunities to register any objection to the slaughter of innocent children
-c- asserted that a homosexual who has sex with another consenting adult is as bad as a man who forcibly rapes a woman
don't get me wrong, i don't claim to be some ultimate moral authority. i will however claim that my morals are better than your god's and better than yours.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 |
the right answer is telling god to go to hell, no i won't murder an innocent child for you, you evil, evil fuck. and if you want to punish me for disobedience, then go ahead, you twat, because i'd rather have that than murder an innocent child.
|
Then you'd fail the test. TEST being key word. Note that God has never required human sacrifice. Abraham was asked this as a test to see whether he was truly faithful to God. If he had said no, then that meant he wasn't faithful enough to obey.
It's not about what he was asked to do, it was about whether or not he would obey.
|
oh, if it's a test of whether you will do whatever your boss tells you no matter how evil it is, then sure, abraham passes and i emphatically won't. but like i said, some of us actually have morals.
also, "god has never required human sacrifice"? how are you defining "sacrifice"? according to the bible he wipes all huge numbers of innocent people, including children, and also instructs his followers to do the same.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 |
And why would compassion get in the way? Why are some of us wired so that would happen?
|
We're all 'wired' to feel compassion. Unfortunately, compassion can compel us to do something wrong - a temptation.
|
compassion can compel us to do something wrong, like refrain from murdering a close friend or family member who tells us their religious views.
three cheers for compassion, i say.
| Quote: |
Example - your friend has finally broken his alcohol addiction, but he is miserable as a result, and keeps desiring just 'one more drink'. You might feel pity and wish to fulfill his wish just to make him happy again. After all, it's just one more drink right? And it'd make him feel better!
|
uh no, because moral considerations are based on a little more than just immediate happiness.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 |
no, because i'm not the one here justifying murder on the grounds of a religious disagreement.
|
Good, because i have no desire to murder anyone because they don't share my belief.
|
and yet when i say these particular bible verses are evil, you justify them.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 |
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 |
k, but the other opinion is crap, isn't it?
|
It's no more crap than yours. Opinions are just that, opinions. So naturally you'd think an opposing opinion is crap... heck, it's what I think of yours.
|
feel free to explain why, although remember what i said about arguments from authority.
|
Why should I explain it? You don't agree with my opinion, I don't agree with yours.
|
indeed. anyone reading this thread can see the difference between our moral standards.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 |
| Quote: |
If you've told yourself that it's impossible for you to believe in anything without proof
|
Uh, no, I didn't say that. My friend told me last night about his recent trip to Istanbul. I didn't ask him for proof.
|
I guess I was too literal here.
|
no, i don't think the problem was that you were too literal, i think the problem is that you don't understand how the mind works.
remember the first religious debate between you and i? you kept saying that if you won't believe anything without proof, you're a "hopeless case". you said that anyone who finds your religion unconvincing is "desperately trying to find an excuse because they want an easier path".
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 |
Whether I want proof for a claim depends on its believability and its implications. If you just wanted to claim that there was a man called Jesus who had some radical ideas on morality and ended up getting crucified, then fine. I don't need proof of that, I'll be quite happy to read his ideas and judge them on their own merits. If instead you try telling me that he was the son of God, that he rose from the dead, and that if I believe in him I can get everlasting life after death and that if I don't I'm in for an eternity of torture, then that needs proof.
|
"Oh, dear."
|
oh dear what? you don't see my point? saying that there was this guy who had these moral ideas, that doesn't need much evidence. the moral ideas can be considered on their own merits, and that could happen even if the entire jesus story was entirely made up and someone just wrote down the story including the moral teachings from their own imagination.
but that's not what christians claim, is it?
whether proof is required depends upon the believability of the story and the importance of its implications. in the case of christianity we have an absurd story that isn't even internally consistent and whose authorship is dubious, and we have monumentally large implications. with that combination, extraordinary proof is required.
we don't even have ordinary proof. however, earlier you said there was... that didn't go very well, did it?
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 |
Again, when a Muslim tells you that Islam is inspired by God, the God you already believe in, you don't believe that without proof. (although, i wonder if you would even seriously consider any proof that could be shown to you)
|
I don't want conclusive proof to believe their claims.
However, I find the Biblical story more convincing than the Qoran's.
|
so muslims have greater faith than you, basically?
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 |
Here's what needs to happen before anything in the Bible can be seriously considered a 'law'.
1. Prove this god exists.
2. Prove this book is an accurate depiction of his views; i.e. prove he actually said what the bible says he said.
3. Successfully make the case that god is of such extraordinary moral brilliance that a dictatorship under him would be better than a democracy
4. Win the vote to discard our current democratic systems
|
Heh, if 3 was proven then 4 would be unneccessary.
|
so you basically think yourself above democratic laws?
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 |
| Quote: |
If the majority is a part of the lawmaking process, then yes.
|
So basically no, then?
|
I didn't say no, so what do you mean?
|
my question was: if the majority of us don't want to live under a religious dictatorship, can we change it? you answer: if the majority is part of the lawmaking process, then yes. well, the whole concept of a dictatorship is that what the majority wants is entirely irrelevant. it's what the boss wants that counts.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 |
| Quote: |
If they've broken Biblical commandments, the same will happen to them as others who do the same.
|
so it's all about actions rather than beliefs, is it?
|
I didn't say that. You can easily break Biblical commandments with both actions and/or beliefs.
Stealing - breaks a commandment
Believing baptism is unneccesary - breaks a commandment
|
blast. i thought you were on the verge of actually improving your morals there. no such luck.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 |
then i wonder why you went to the trouble of trying to answer my earlier criticism by posting the matthew henry crap.
|
You were quoting scripture. That wasn't an opinion of yours, that was a point of yours you tried to back up. That's why i responded.
|
i have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say here.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 |
what is the 5-step plan, though? i could look it up, i'm sure, but i may as well hear it from you.
|
Strage, I'd have thought you'd be familiar with it, seeing as you're familiar with other scripture.
|
We'll put this down to the sheer incompetence and absurdity of the revelation.
| Quote: |
But OK:
1. Hear the message (Romans 10:17)
2. Believe it (Mark 16:16)
3. Repent of your past sins (Acts 2: 38)
4. State that you believe christ is the son of God (Romans 10:10)
5. Be baptized (Acts 2: 38)
Also, there's a sixth step I neglected to include (I really don't know why it isn't commonly called the 6-step plan)
6. Live faithfully until Death (Revelations 2: 10)
|
hmm.
1. Hear the message (Romans 10:17)
So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
what exactly is the message?
2. Believe it (Mark 16:16)
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
carrot and stick! shame we're talking about thoughtcrime here. see my earlier objections. and shall we be really clear about what is meant by "saved" and by "condemned"?
3. Repent of your past sins (Acts 2: 38)
And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
what if the sins themselves are bullshit?
what if i do do something wrong, but i don't accept that god or jesus has any place to forgive me?
i'm reminded again of our earlier religious debate. you said that you'd done things which you would deserve to go to hell for if you hadn't "repented". well, that's quite a daring admission, telling us that you'd done something so evil that it would justify the most horrific punishment of all. (unless you're arguing that god and his punishments are unjust, and you've never seemed to think that)
well, i couldn't help but ask what those things were. what were these horrific crimes you committed? you wouldn't say. i also asked how you define "repented". you said that it basically means asking for forgiveness in private prayer or in church.
interesting, that. if i thought i had done something so appalling evil, so damaging to the world around me that it would justify me receiving the very worst punishment imaginable, i can't imagine how just saying sorry in a church could possibly make up for it.
finally... "and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit". what's that then?
4. State that you believe christ is the son of God (Romans 10:10)
For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.
well, i don't believe that. i do have a question, though.
what would you prefer?
person A doesn't believe this, and says so honestly.
person B says he believes this, and you don't have any way of really knowing whether he's telling the truth or just wants you to shut the fuck up.
5. Be baptized (Acts 2: 38)
uh, same as step 3?
6. Live faithfully until Death (Revelations 2: 10)
Do not fear what you are about to suffer. Behold, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and for ten days you will have tribulation. Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life.
it's 'Revelation', not 'Revelations.' i'm not usually this pedantic, but it's astonishing how many times christians wrongly use the plural.
anyway.
is this only addressed to people who are about to be thrown into prison, or about to encounter the devil? or can we ignore the first two sentences and it's the third that applies to everyone at all times?
well, "be faithful". define that for me, please. you'd also better explain what "the crown of life" is.
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
[Updated on: Fri, 02 April 2010 05:55] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #424501 is a reply to message #422616] |
Fri, 02 April 2010 19:53 |
 |
NukeIt15
Messages: 987
Registered: February 2003
Location: Out to lunch
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
I'll see your ducks and raise you acrocoduck.
That one system of belief, no matter how popular, should be able to impose its will on the rest of society... anybody ever heard the phrase "tyranny of the majority?" To say that Christianity is the one true faith simply because it's been a dominant force in the world since Constantine is as silly a notion as the poor little nonexistent critter I just linked you to.
Religions rise and fall. So do nations. The only thing that matters is that we treat other human beings like the human beings that they are. There aren't any cases of a child flipping their shit and committing heinous crimes just because they were raised by two mommies or two daddies or six daddies and three mommies or any other combination of consenting adults... so what business does any construct so transient as a church have saying that's not to be permitted?
We'd do well to remember that human beings in one form or another have been kicking around on this dirtball for hundreds of thousands of years. None of the major religions in the world today have been around for even the tiniest fraction of our collective history as a species. There's nothing wrong with believing in a higher power, if it helps you put the world in context and treat others with respect and decency, but to use it as justification to deny anything to anyone is utter and complete arrogance.
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine
Remember, kids: illiteracy is cool. If you took the time to read this, you are clearly a loser who will never get laid. You've been warned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #424589 is a reply to message #424580] |
Sat, 03 April 2010 19:07 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
um, no.
a religion is yet again saying they shouldn't have to follow the law. it would take a lot more than just proving there was a god to justify that position. and to refute it, we don't have to prove there isn't a god.
as for neither altzan nor myself proving each other wrong, maybe read the entirety of the thread; it would also be worth reading the first debate (him on one side, basically me and dover on the other).
for example, on this page he's basically said that two adult guys who love each other and want to have a consenting relationship is every bit as bad as a man who rapes a woman. do you have a comment to make about that? i honestly felt like slapping him twice at that point.
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 #424591 is a reply to message #422616] |
Sat, 03 April 2010 19:35 |
|
snpr1101
Messages: 425
Registered: June 2007
Location: Australia
Karma: 0
|
Commander |
|
|
yea it might help if I read it all  I guess the general gist I got of it was wrong. ah well, carry on.
edit: Yea I can comment on that, it might be wrong but here it is anyway. The disagreement in this case lies within Altzans' belief in God and the Bible; and your apparent lack of belief (I think?). I'd presume it's common knowledge that the bible speaks out against homosexuality, to put it lightly; and obviously against rape too. Now I'm not really sure as to how Altzan came to the conclusion that one is worse than the other (maybe there's some sort of point system in the bible that i missed aka 10 points for rape, yay I win!), but I think in his view, they are both sins. Thus, anything that goes against the teachings, or laws of the bible is either a sin; or something that may impede on the apparent goal of living by the bible, acknowledging Jesus as the Lord and Savior business and getting into heaven. - (I presume that's the gist of it).
But on the other hand, your apparent lack of belief in the Bible negates the homosexuality part. Therefore, you see rape as wrong (which it is), and two homosexual men who "love" eachother (prove that exists while your at it) as normal (debatable - disprove God and the Bible and you'll win it)
So in conclusion, you can't debate or tell someone that they're wrong about something like that without looking at the root of it. He believes in God, you don't. He believes in the Bible, you don't. The reason Altzans' opinion differs against yours isn't due to just his own sole reasons; they have a strong link to the Bible and to God. Therefore, disprove the Bible and God, and you will win the argument.
Now the chances of someone doing that on the Renegade Forums is pretty low (lol); so like Ziggy said, I think this argument while not pointless - is pretty close.
I realise I made alot of assumptions in there and I apologise if I mis-represented anyone's views or offended anyone. Without reading the whole thing, that is the gist of what i've got out of it.
[Updated on: Sat, 03 April 2010 20:01] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #424600 is a reply to message #422616] |
Sat, 03 April 2010 21:35 |
|
NukeIt15
Messages: 987
Registered: February 2003
Location: Out to lunch
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
The Bible has so much rape and incest in it that it stops being funny by the end of Genesis. It never specifically says "this is ok" as far as I remember, but neither is anyone ever punished for either act- at least not in the canon. Several times, women are handed over by their families to be abused because either the home was under threat or the rapist was a guest in the home- the tradition of hospitality being held as more sacred than the woman.
Matter of fact, according to a literal interpretation of the Old Testament, the entire human race would never have existed but for much "begatting" amongst fathers and their daughters- and it's important to note here that the ages at which women became fair play in the ancient world were well below what any first-world nation would today consider statutory rape.
I have nothing against the Bible, I really don't- it is not only one of the most influential books ever compiled, but also a stupendously valuable anthropological resource that can grant us great insight into how people thought and worshiped in the ancient Middle East. It is not, however, a very good morality guide for modern society if taken literally- not even the New Testament, which throws out the OT's fire-and-brimstone approach to dealing with sinners. Anyone who chooses to believe is free to do so, but to impress those beliefs on others who don't is no less wrong than any other sort of religious persecution. To codify those beliefs into law or to claim them as outside or above the law is a terrible step backwards for any nation that allows it to happen. Law and religion ought never to mix.
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine
Remember, kids: illiteracy is cool. If you took the time to read this, you are clearly a loser who will never get laid. You've been warned.
[Updated on: Sat, 03 April 2010 21:38] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon May 20 16:00:11 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01814 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
