Religion based intolerance...

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." - Virginia court decision, 1959


Oh my fucking god, did they REALLY use that in a COURT DECISION as LOGIC, to prove that interracial marriage was wrong?

They "simplified" it all to "each race was on a separate continent on some sort of 1-to-1 basis," and that proves thatgod wanted each race to stick with itself?!

Is it the position of the asshole shithead schmucks who wrote that decision that "BOATS" are "interference," and that were it not for BOATS that went across seas to other continents, all would have been hunky-dory?

Oh, and what of the notion that the border between Europe and Asia exists only as a line on a fucking atlas?!!

That's juris prudence!?

No wonder our world is so fucked.

(By the way, why would a god that loves us let us make our world so absolutely fucked?)

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

• Quote

[jakee 1,498]

(Not aimed at peacefuljeffery, just a general comment)

Here's an interesting point of view I came across the other day about whether or not sin is even relevant in the eyes of the gods.
From book two of the introduction to Plato's The Republic (written sometime between 399 and 347BC)
Adeimantus is argueing the advantages of being an unjust man.

Quote

"Yet neither deceit nor force is effective against the gods" But if there are no gods or if they care nothing for human affairs, why should we bother to decieve them? And if there are gods and they do care, our only knowledge of them is derived from tradition and the poets who have written their genealogies, and they tell us that they can be persuaded to change their minds by sacrifices and "humble prayers" and offerings. We must believe them in both types of testimony or neither; and if we believe them then the thing to do is sin first then sacrifice afterwards from the proceeds. For if we do right we shall merely avoid the wrath of heaven, but lose the profits of wrong-doing; but if we do wrong we shall get the profits and, provided that we accompany our sins and wickedness with prayer, be able to persuade the gods to let us go unpunished. "But we shall pay in the next world for the sins we commit in this, either ourselves or our descendants." To which the calculating answer is that initiation and the gods that give absolution are very powerful, as we are told by the most important among human societies, and by children of the gods who become poets and prophets with a divine message and revealed that these things are so.

So then, what motivation for being a good bloke (and what punishment for being gay) does remain when either god isn't there or, if he is, absolution can be gained simply by beleiving?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

So then, what motivation for being a good bloke

That's one of the arguments of religion I just don't get. People say that without religion people wouldn't know how to act in a civilised manner. I think it's that people who want to do bad things, use religion as a crutch to curb their desires. Whereas those of us that don't want to do bad things, don't need it.

For example, Pajarto mentioned numerous times that it is a constant struggle for him not to cheat on his wife. And that his commitment to god is the only thing keeping him from doing it. Personally, I've never even cheated on a girlfriend. It was my commitment to that person and not wanting to hurt them that kept me from doing it.

Bottom line, IMO, religion is for people who don't have enough empathy for other people to do the right thing, so they need a rulebook so that they know how to act.

[Nightingale 0]

what motivates me to do good is an extreme dislike for hurting other people.

[jakee 1,498]

Quote

what motivates me to do good is an extreme dislike for hurting other people.

OK thats a good sentiment but I was talking about motivation from religious beliefs.
I've lost count of the number of times in this thread that people have said "Acceptance of Jesus will save you" along side "God doesn't like you being gay so you shouldn't".
It really should just be one or the other, either you can do what you want and be forgiven because you believe, or you can be judged on your actions and your beliefs wont matter.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

what motivates me to do good is an extreme dislike for hurting other people.

Exactly my point.

[jakee 1,498]

Quote

Bottom line, IMO, religion is for people who don't have enough empathy for other people to do the right thing, so they need a rulebook so that they know how to act.

No thats just a side effect. No one who needs a rulebook to live a good life is going to go looking for that rulebook when they could just do bad things and not feel guilty. Much easier and much more satisfying.
I reckon religions are the frameworks that have been invented to support notions of spirituality and the soul, which in turn sprang up from an inability to face fear of death.
But thats a whole different thread.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[pajarito 0]

Quote

To me, this is like if I were to say, "IMO, if PhillyKev tells me that the cube root of 125,433,786 is 4,429, I'm gonna go with that and put all my faith in his answer."

First of all, how is it a matter of faith? In the end, either god really IS god, and Jesus really IS the son of god, and god really DID do all that the bible says and he created the universe, etc., OR NOT. But it doesn't come down to OPINION any more than the cube root of 125,433,786 does. Faith, maybe -- but to me, faith is like expecting me to believe that my brother has moved the Eiffel Tower into his back yard without having the slightest bit of proof. Why would I believe something soooo incredible with absolutely no reason at all?

How can one use the "word of god" to justify faith in god when that very god is the thing you're wondering whether you should believe in?! That's circular logic, and as such it fails to be valid.

You say, "God tells us to have faith and believe in him."
I say, "Oh, so you have to already believe in god in order to believe the scripture that tells you to believe in god. How reasonable."

Ptthhhhht! Nope -- not for me!

The books of the Bible or any ancient written work aren’t proved to be accurate by means of the scientific method as in your example with PhillyKev.

Accepted ways of establishing credibility and their reference to the Bible are listed below:

Method: Bibliographical (Textual Criticism)

Definition: Examination of the textual transmission by which documents reach us.

Evidence: 1. Greek Manuscripts - Papyri, Uncials (Majuscules), Minuscules, and Lectionaries

2. The Versions (Translations) – Well over 19,000 versions have been produced. You will say that this discredits the reliability and I agree that there may be some lost in translation but I tell you that this is overwhelming corroborating evidence for its accuracy.

3. Writings of the Church Fathers - Most of the New Testament could be reconstructed with just the notes from The Church Fathers and not using any other source mentioned.

Note: NO OTHER "ancient work" has this kind of evidence for reliability.

Method: Internal Evidence (Historical)

Definition: Credibility of the persons who wrote the text.

Evidence: 1. Eye-witnesses to the events that took place.
2. Respected and trusted authors.

3. Due to seriousness of claims, authors were obviously watched and examined by many for deviation from truth.

Method: External Evidence (Historical)

Definition: Whether other historical material confirms or denies the internal testimony.

Evidence: Paraphrased from book by Josh McDowell
1. Two friends of John confirm the internal evidence from John's accounts. The historian Eusebius preserves writings fo Papis, Bishop of Hierapolis: "The Elder (Apostle John) used to say this also: 'Mark, having been the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately all that he (Peter) mentioned, whether sayings or doings of Christ, not however, in order. For he was neither a hearer nor a companion of the Lord. So then Mark made no mistake, writign down in this way some things as he mentioned them; for he paid attention to this one thing,not to omit anything that he had heard, not to include any false statement among them.

2. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (A.D. 180 Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, who had been a Christian for eighty-six years, and was a disciple of John the Apolstle) wrote: "matthew published his Gospel among the Hebrews in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome and founding the church there. After their death, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself handed down to us in writing the substance of Peter's preaching. Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the gospel preached by his teacher. Then John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned on his breast himself produced his Gospel, while he was living at Ephesus in Asia.

Method: Archaeology

Definition: Physical evidence from the past.

Evidence: Without listing all of it, Sir William Ramsay (One of the most famous archaeologists ever) changed his skeptical view after much research and discovery and determined that the historicity of Luke was accurate. He also came to the conclusion that the Book of Acts was accurate in its description of the georgraphy, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor. Others including F.F. Bruce, A.N. Sherwin-White (classical historian), and Dr. Clark H. Pinnock, professor of systematic theology, all now share the view that the New Testament text is confirmed.

I'd say that the vast proponderance of the evidence leads to a conclusion of reliability as opposed to your skeptical view.

"Skepticism regarding the historical credentials of Christianity is based upon an irrational bias." Dr. Clark H. Pinnock

[pajarito 0]

Quote

In other words, about as reliable as a game of "Telephone." Dude, you can't even get a string of twenty people to accurately reproduce the sentence, "Go to the store holding the goldfish and tell the clerk you wanted a catfish," accurately down the line, but you want us to base an entire system of living on "word of mouth"?! That's far beyond what I will agree to.

And as far as "the ones left out" not having a bearing on the truth of the rest, that could be as troublesome as this:

"We stormed the building, rescued the hostages, and arrested the terrorists whom we then took out in back of the building and summarily executed without trial and now everything is fine."

History passed down by “word of mouth” prior to the written records was taken very seriously by the ancient Jews and was obviously cross-checked by everyone for accuracy. The written records were also written down within a relatively short period of time after the death of Jesus. The accounts are also very detailed and are corroborated by the other books in the Gospels almost exactly.

Quote

Would you say that what is omitted may be significant to the credibility of what is left out?

The New Testament stands on its own as for reliability. Whatever historical significance the ones not included might have is not needed.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Oh, yes, another inconsistency problem!
God gave us the Old Testament, let us live as human civilization for a while (how long was it, anyway?) until he FINALLY got around to giving us this son of his whose death would redeem us all. It seems a little irresponsible of god to leave us hanging after the first volume, because I have to presume that those who lived before the New Testament got fucked out of going to heaven, since the key to that came later in the form of Jesus.

HOW IS THIS STUFF EXPLAINED AWAY?!

Nothing needs to be explained away. How is it inconsistent? You just don’t like the rules of the game so you criticize. You’re presumption that “those who lived before the New Testament got fucked out of going to heaven” isn’t true either. Before Jesus, people were justified by the grace of God through their righteousness. I’m not saying everybody. I’m saying those who God deemed righteous. I’m not an Old Testament scholar so someone correct me if I’m wrong. When Jesus came and did what he did, a new covenant was ushered in with God’s people. People are now justified only through the blood of Jesus Christ. One must accept Jesus as savior and repent of sin. Bottom line. There is no other way for anyone.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Quote

So then, what motivation for being a good bloke

That's one of the arguments of religion I just don't get. People say that without religion people wouldn't know how to act in a civilised manner. I think it's that people who want to do bad things, use religion as a crutch to curb their desires. Whereas those of us that don't want to do bad things, don't need it.

For example, Pajarto mentioned numerous times that it is a constant struggle for him not to cheat on his wife. And that his commitment to god is the only thing keeping him from doing it. Personally, I've never even cheated on a girlfriend. It was my commitment to that person and not wanting to hurt them that kept me from doing it.

Bottom line, IMO, religion is for people who don't have enough empathy for other people to do the right thing, so they need a rulebook so that they know how to act.

I congratulate you on your ability to live a perfect life without having ever done anything to harm anyone (either physically or verbally). You are obviously righteous on your own merit and that is quite an accomplishment. I, as well as most everybody else on planet Earth, stand in awe.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I congratulate you on your ability to live a perfect life without having ever done anything to harm anyone (either physically or verbally). You are obviously righteous on your own merit and that is quite an accomplishment. I, as well as most everybody else on planet Earth, stand in awe.

Never claimed that. But I do think I'm generally a good person. And amazingly, I'm able to be that way without religion. I don't need a reason not to do bad things to people other than that I don't want to hurt them. It's not because I fear repurcussions, it's out of respect for other people.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

No thats just a side effect. No one who needs a rulebook to live a good life is going to go looking for that rulebook when they could just do bad things and not feel guilty. Much easier and much more satisfying.

That’s a good descriptive example of the flaw and imperfectness of man. All Christians included.

I reckon religions are the frameworks that have been invented to support notions of spirituality and the soul, which in turn sprang up from an inability to face fear of death.
But thats a whole different thread.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Never claimed that. But I do think I'm generally a good person. And amazingly, I'm able to be that way without religion. I don't need a reason not to do bad things to people other than that I don't want to hurt them. It's not because I fear repurcussions, it's out of respect for other people.

Yes...but are you saying that you never have? If so, the system of ethics and morality that you've created for yourself is flawed.

[Nightingale 0]

that argument could be turned right back at you:

basically, you said that if you've never broken your own moral code, that code is flawed.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Yes...but are you saying that you never have? If so, the system of ethics and morality that you've created for yourself is flawed.

Sure I have, never claimed to be perfect. Adn afterward I would feel remorse and seek forgiveness from the person affected. Not some third party. Are you saying that you've never sinned? If you have does that mean your religion is flawed?

[andrewstewart 0]

***I’ve faced real fear and death before. I, however, face it with confidence now because I know my future.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

that argument could be turned right back at you:

basically, you said that if you've never broken your own moral code, that code is flawed.

I'm saying that you, as a person, can't live up to your own code of morality much less the one given by the Bible. If I look to my own moral code, in all probability, I will fail from time to time. If I look to the Bible for my moral code, I will also fail because I'm human and imperfect. Jesus Christ led the perfect life, though, and set the example for all of us. I am only righeous in the eyes of God through my faith in him. Therefore, the code of the New Covenant is not flawed.

[Deuce 1]

Quote

Bottom line, IMO, religion is for people who don't have enough empathy for other people to do the right thing, so they need a rulebook so that they know how to act.

That's it! The scales have fallen from my eyes and I will run naked in the streets!

I'm free at last!

[jakee 1,498]

Quote

I’ve faced real fear and death before. I, however, face it with confidence now because I know my future.

Exactly my point. You're now much happier about the thought of dying because you think there is something waiting for you afterwards.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,498]

Quote

I am only righeous in the eyes of God through my faith in him.

So it honestly doesn't matter whether you lead a good life in the eyes of the lord, it only matters that you believe?
So back to the subject, whats wrong with homosexuals then?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Deuce 1]

Quote

whats wrong with homosexuals then?

They spend entirely too much time in the bathroom, and create the expectation among heterosexual women that heterosexual me should wax their torsos.

And they say "fabulous" far too often.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

OK thats a good sentiment but I was talking about motivation from religious beliefs.
I've lost count of the number of times in this thread that people have said "Acceptance of Jesus will save you" along side "God doesn't like you being gay so you shouldn't".
It really should just be one or the other, either you can do what you want and be forgiven because you believe, or you can be judged on your actions and your beliefs wont matter.

No. If you believe, you should want to do good things instead of bad ones. If you "sincerely" invite Jesus into your heart and accept him as your personal lord and savior, there will be a change in you and you will become more compelled to do righteous things. That doesn't mean that you won't ever want to do bad things just because you're "saved." We are in a constant inner battle with our human nature. The point is that, once "saved", you should always work to be like Jesus. Of course, you can't live up to that standard but you've got to "run the race." Being Christian doesn't give you a free ticket to do whatever you want. The key is in the sincerity of the decision. If it wasn't sincere, then you are living a lie and it will show in your works.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Quote

I’ve faced real fear and death before. I, however, face it with confidence now because I know my future.

Exactly my point. You're now much happier about the thought of dying because you think there is something waiting for you afterwards.

True. I'm more comfortable with the idea of dying because I "know" there's a future.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

The point is that, once "saved", you should always work to be like Jesus. Of course, you can't live up to that standard but you've got to "run the race."

And now getting back to the original topic. When did Jesus ever advocate condemning sinners?